Vikings Message Board.Com

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:I love how so many of Musgrave's play call only have one option to throw. Like on those roll outs. On Freeman's INT Rudolph was the only receiver.

If the first (only) read isn't open the options are: Throw it away, run, take a sack, throw it anyway. And Freeman did the latter more than a few times.

Yeah, we kept 9 in to block and they still got pressure right up the gut which caused the poor throw / decision. Though it was a tight end this time we probably lead the league in 1 WR sets / pass plays.

Musgrave has to be the guy that gets fired. No one else really can be till seasons end. Honestly, anyone can call those plays. There has to be some retired OC out there that wants a job.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Musgrave has to be the guy that gets fired. No one else really can be till seasons end. Honestly, anyone can call those plays. There has to be some retired OC out there that wants a job.

Lane Kiffin.

Frazier is really making me regret the degree to which I've supported him over the past few years. I knew he wasn't an innovator or a football genius but for Pete's sake, I thought he was smarter than this:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 73701.html

“If I had to do it over again, I don’t think I’d do it any differently under the circumstances,” Frazier said. “I knew exactly why we made the decision. Felt very confident going into the ballgame with the decision.”

Frazier said Freeman will start again Sunday night against the Green Bay Packers, but he stopped short of naming him the starter the rest of the season.

“I don’t know if I’ve thought that far ahead,” he said.

Frazier said he’s under “no obligation” from General Manager Rick Spielman or ownership to play Freeman

“The only reason the decision was made to start him [was]because we believed that he would give us the best chance to be successful in that ballgame with the Giants,” Frazier said. “And the only reason he would start on Sunday is for that reason. No obligation other than that.”.

“I’ll tell you, we really felt like we put together a good plan,” Frazier said. “And watching him execute that plan in practice, we felt confident going into it that we’d have success doing some of the things we had in place. It didn’t happen. But there was nothing I look back at that week in preparation that would have indicated that we would have come up with zero points from an offensive standpoint.”

Frazier attributed Freeman’s erratic passing to a breakdown in his mechanics, which the coaching staff noticed last week and tried to correct.

... and yet there was nothing in that week of preparation that would have indicated they'd come up empty on offense?

Mothman wrote:Frazier is really making me regret that degree to which I've supported him over the past few years. I knew he wasn't an innovator or a football genius but for Pete's sake, I thought he was smarter than this:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 73701.html
... and yet there was nothing in that week of preparation that would have indicated they'd come up empty on offense?

Frankly, I don't believe half of what he says in press conferences. He strikes me as an intelligent man that knows the media game and is well versed in public relations. He's going to back his players, coaches and system and put his confidence in his team. Placing blame or delving out criticism publicly seems to be of little benefit to the organization and could potentially be counterproductive and cause internal strife. I guess I just refuse to believe the things he says are 100% what he believes/feels. Things are close to becoming unraveled in Winter Park, and public criticism of coaches/players could only spark a *gasp!* schism. Better for the team to see your support, confidence and desire to improve than contempt.

Or maybe he's more clueless than I realize.

Frazier admitted that the coaches in-person noticed a breakdown in the mechanics of a guy who was 1-8 in his last 9 starts.
Not only did they throw him out there on a week's notice with the playbook and brand new players, they had him pass
more than 50 times on the road when the team has Peterson and Gerhardt.

Would they "do it all over again?" Yep. Which is bad if it is a lie but incomprehensibly horrid if the truth.

dead_poet wrote:
Frankly, I don't believe half of what he says in press conferences. He strikes me as an intelligent man that knows the media game and is well versed in public relations. He's going to back his players, coaches and system and put his confidence in his team. Placing blame or delving out criticism publicly seems to be of little benefit to the organization and could potentially be counterproductive and cause internal strife. I guess I just refuse to believe the things he says are 100% what he believes/feels. Things are close to becoming unraveled in Winter Park, and public criticism of coaches/players could only spark a *gasp!* schism. Better for the team to see your support, confidence and desire to improve than contempt.

Or maybe he's more clueless than I realize.

It's quite a leap of faith to believe that behind the scenes he has a clue when there is nothing in his statements or his team's ability to perform or in his coaches ability to make adjustments in game, before game, after game that would lead one to believe it. The only argument (the argument you've been making) for him having clues (or emotion for that matter) is that because not all his time is spent in the public eye, there is that chance he just doesn't let on how competent he really is behind closed doors. At some point you have to admit that what he puts out there, what comes out of his mouth and what comes out of his staff and team is all that matters, and its very likely all he's got.

Hey, lets give credit where credit is due. He's a nice guy, the team has better discipline then at times in the past, and the team seems to like him. But he isn't getting it done, and all the evidence points to him not having a clue about what it takes to get it done. There is just no reason to believe he's hiding his true understanding or abilities.

dead_poet wrote:Frankly, I don't believe half of what he says in press conferences. He strikes me as an intelligent man that knows the media game and is well versed in public relations. He's going to back his players, coaches and system and put his confidence in his team. Placing blame or delving out criticism publicly seems to be of little benefit to the organization and could potentially be counterproductive and cause internal strife. I guess I just refuse to believe the things he says are 100% what he believes/feels.

I do too and I also consider him to be an intelligent man but I think he's seriously mishandling his team and the media at the moment. There's nothing to be gained by publicly placing blame or delving out criticism at this point but shoveling #### isn't going to help matters either. What he's saying simply isn't believable and if he's handing his team the same "Freeman gives us the best chance to be successful in this game" line he's handing the public, they won't buy it either. In fact, I can't imagine how he's selling Freeman to his after that performance!

I'm not expecting public criticism of players and coaches but I would like some acknowledgement of what's actually going on and we all know it isn't that Freeman gives them the best chance to win these games. A man well-versed in public relations should understand that masking something so obvious to everyone simply makes him, and the team, look bad.

Valhalla wrote:A common criticism of Denny Green seemed what he told the press often added up to nothing helpful.

One good thing about the Vikings and I listened to Sage Rosenthals interviewed yesterday, the Viking organization now is probably "circling the wagons", no locker-room disarray, they are keeping a stiff face up to the public.

Now what I don't understand is if the decision to play Freeman is from above Frazier which it may well be, I don't know where that leaves the simple issue of "sacking Frazier" unless there are more plans per HC behind the scenes.

I know what you mean. Is starting Freeman so quickly a desperate attempt by Frazier to save his job or has he already been given a free pass to next year because the organization wants to see what Freeman can do?

Regarding your first comment: I don't really mind if coaches aren't giving the press anything very helpful in press conferences. What bothers me is when they makes themselves look foolish and try to justify bad decisions with bad answers. It was painfully obvious to everyone on Monday that Freeman didn't give the Vikings their best chance to be successful and he won't give them their best chance to be successful on Sunday night either. All Frazier's doing is insuring that an already disgruntled, frustrated home crowd will be even more frustrated on Sunday. Considering how many Packer fans tend to turn out for Vikes/Packers games in Minnesota, I won't be surprised if the crowd cheers more for GB than for the Vikes. The Packers are certainly more likely to give them something to cheer about.

I guess AD was pulled on 3rd downs because he doesnt pass-block well (Gerhart DOES?)

Even if Frazier is sacrificed on the Pyre of Failure...we still have NO QB, NO secondary, and a suddenly suspect OL/DL....

Mothman wrote:There's nothing to be gained by publicly placing blame or delving out criticism at this point but shoveling #### isn't going to help matters either.

It's the lesser of two evils and it's a smart tactic IMO. Honestly, nothing is going to appease the fan base save for wins.

What he's saying simply isn't believable and if he's handing his team the same "Freeman gives us the best chance to be successful in this game" line he's handing the public, they won't buy it either. In fact, I can't imagine how he's selling Freeman to his after that performance!

I don't think it's that hard. More familiarity with the system and increased reps with his receivers will help. There's also the "unknown being potentially better than the known." The team knows what it has in Ponder. Hopefully they've seen the floor with Freeman. I've also read reports that Freeman was considerably better in practice (and likely will be again), though that's of small consolation going up against this secondary.

I'm not expecting public criticism of players and coaches but I would like some acknowledgement of what's actually going on

Like what? Frazier has said they need to improve and execute better. I suppose I'd also like him to use the phrase "not acceptable" or something a bit stronger, but this is how the media game works and he's far from the only coach that sticks to the talking points. You know as well as I do that what he's doing is commonplace in the NFL. Just listen to any Bill Belichick press conference. Even the "best coaches" take this approach, especially in tough times. I know if I was in his position I wouldn't want to give the media any juicy quotes/sound bites that they can mold into a storyline that he's disappointed, critical, blaming, losing control, etc. I just don't see the value to the team (which is really all he cares about), even if a different message might placate some fans. YMMV

and we all know it isn't that Freeman gives them the best chance to win these games.

You're probably right, but I think it's debatable. Especially how poorly Ponder has played this year. The hard truth is none of these football-throwers can probably play well enough to win games. Especially with the way the defense is playing.

Mothman wrote:What he's saying simply isn't believable and if he's handing his team the same "Freeman gives us the best chance to be successful in this game" line he's handing the public, they won't buy it either. In fact, I can't imagine how he's selling Freeman to his after that performance!

I believe he's started Ponder after perfectly dreadful performances. I don't think the players need to be "sold" on who is starting and playing. Players know that teams are thinking of today and tomorrow while players pretty much think about today.

I actually think the players would be MORE alarmed if Frazier benched Freeman after that debacle. He's given everyone else several chances, why not Freeman.

My ONLY hope is that he is taking Musgrave to the woodshed behind the scenes. There are absolutely pass plays in existence in the NFL that Freeman should be successful with on our team. If Musgrave keeps dialing up "4th read crossing patterns 20 yards downfield with cuts based on the safety's left leg", well then, Freeman will be unsuccessful yet again. Fake screen one side to a dump screen the other side? Now THAT should be successful even if I was playing QB.

dead_poet wrote:It's the lesser of two evils and it's a smart tactic IMO. Honestly, nothing is going to appease the fan base save for wins.

I don't know about being a smart tactic... it's certainly alienating me and I've been in Frazier's corner more often than not.

Like what?

Ponder certainly struggled but the team was putting up points when he was playing too. He made bad throws and missed opportunities but he also led them on actual scoring drives that didn't take place in garbage time and we saw last year that he's capable of bouncing back from some poor performances with some good ones.

Sherels' TD was the only reason the Vikes weren't shut out. I have a hard time believing Ponder or Cassel can't give them a better chance to win than a QB who led the offense to 0 points and overthrew receivers what, 15 times?

Mothman wrote:I don't know about being a smart tactic... it's certainly alienating me and I've been in Frazier's corner more often than not.

I think he can deal with that more so than alienating his players. As a coach, I want fans to like/respect me, but I need that from my guys.

A healthy dose of leadership and conviction would be nice. Responding to questions about Freeman being the starter for the rest of the season with something less wishy washy than "“I don’t know if I’ve thought that far ahead” shows neither quality. If they aren't making a commitment to see what Freeman can do then why is he starting? He clearly wasn't their best chance to win the game on Monday and after that performance, Frazier can't possibly believe that's the case against Green Bay. I get what you're saying about coachspeak and I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about leadership. I don't want or need Frazier to publicly admit his mistakes, call people out, etc. just to placate us fans. However, if he's going to try selling anybody on the idea that Freeman gives the Vikes the best chance to win than for Pete's sake, sell it. Show some freakin' commitment to the idea! He's not doing that.

He's not wavering. He's sticking to what he's saying. And it's not unheard of for coaches/players to focus on solely the week ahead. Why publicly commit to Freeman if there's a possibility he may be God awful? Then he'd have to recant that while looking like an idiot/liar to the public, Freeman and the team.

Given the commitment to Freeman and a game plan that was predicated around Josh Freeman, it's not too much of a stretch to believe Freeman was the top option.

I also think, given Freeman's performance on Sunday, it'd be incredibly difficult to make a convincing public case for him. He's not doing it because, honestly, what can he possibly say?

Ponder certainly struggled but the team was putting up points when he was playing too. He made bad throws and missed opportunities but he also led them on actual scoring drives that didn't take place in garbage time and we saw last year that he's capable of bouncing back from some poor performances with some good ones.

And Freeman has proven he can do the same, though it's been a couple of years since he's performed at that level. Freeman's ceiling is, theoretically, higher than Ponder's and as many have pointed out, his best season was significantly better than Ponder's. Looking at it from that perspective, to me, makes it difficult to assume Ponder is the clear best football-thrower.

Sherels' TD was the only reason the Vikes weren't shut out. I have a hard time believing Ponder or Cassel can't give them a better chance to win than a QB who led the offense to 0 points and overthrew receivers what, 15 times?

True, but as I mentioned above, the game plan was predicated around Josh Freeman and he apparently showed enough in practice and meetings to warrant the start. There's no way the team would've put him out there if they thought he would've performed this poorly. It hindsight, Ponder (or Cassel) should've started. There was always the possibility that they could've succeeded after a Freeman benching in the second half (or earlier), but we'll never know. To me it just looked like they were hoping he'd settle down, and never did.

I seriously could care less right now about who they trot out there, but it really isn't going to make the difference between a win and a loss; it'll just be the difference between the severity of the loss. As Tark put it, it's a circus, and a disastrous one at that.

*spits disgustedly into a spittoon*

Mothman wrote:
Ponder certainly struggled but the team was putting up points when he was playing too. He made bad throws and missed opportunities but he also led them on actual scoring drives that didn't take place in garbage time and we saw last year that he's capable of bouncing back from some poor performances with some good ones.

Tbe problem with Ponder (and the same could be said for Cassell) is that he is a legitimate NFL caliber quarterback whose performance is much better than what we saw this past Monday night. Why is that a problem? Because, IMHO, Ponder has never been anything more than a BACKUP caliber QB and yet the Purple brain trust had been speaking about him like a franchise QB. We reached big time and drafted him relatively high in the first round, and as a result, determined to turn him into a starter, despite the fact that his performance was generally mediocre at best. Accordingly, for year after year, we left the cupboard bare when it came to bringing in legit QB competition.

Frankly, I'd rather we put Larry, Curley, Moe or Freeman out there and go 1-15 than continue on with the "Ponder experiment" that we were embarking upon early in the year. The last thing this franchise needs is to turn into the Washington Wizards of the NFL (bad, but not horrid, year after year after year).

If starting Ponder is the answer, the question has nothing to do with how this franchise wins championships. But if I were convinced that this franchise recognizes that Ponder is a backup caliber player and plans to find his replacement at the end of the year, than it wouldn't bother me to see him under center.