Vikings Final Four Wins analysis (Ponder)

[Just Me]

Come on man, you take apologizing to a whole new level. Context or not, he missed that clear opportunity. I'm sure even Brady and Rodgers have missed ones like that a time or 2.

First, I don't think Mothman was apologizing. He correctly pointed out that a still shot can be deceptive, and pointed out a couple of reasons why it might be that way. I added my own additional observation that might have also inhibited Ponder from making the pass. He admitted (as did I) that it may have been a missed opportunity, but the still photograph (in and of itself) is not the 'slam-dunk' indictment you apparently believe it to be. Your 2nd to last sentence: "Context or not" makes no sense. That's like saying "Cop fatally shoots boy" doesn't matter what the context is. What if the boy is shooting at the cops? What if the boy is unarmed and running away? Context is very important and shouldn't be dismissed. Has anyone actually watched/posted the video so that the still frame could be interpreted in proper context?

[Mothman]

Determined? Lol good stuff. Come hell or high water I'm determined to remain a naysayer for no rational reason. You make it seem like a few 3rd down completions is something extraordinary. Exactly how low is the bar for Ponder?

... and with that, you illustrated why I used the word determined. I said nothing at all about 3rd down conversions being extraordinary and yet you chose to characterize my comments that way and use them as a way to switch gears into a question about low the bar is for Ponder. Your intent there was pretty obvious and it wasn't to be fair-minded.

All I did in the paragraph you quoted from was point out another positive aspect of Ponder's performances in two of the final 4 games of 2012. Converting third downs late in games and retaining possession of the ball with a lead can help make the difference between winning a game and losing it. I don't think it's inaccurate to say those are plays that matter to coaches. However, neither of those statements comes even close to suggesting that Ponder did something extraordinary in wins against Chicago or Houston last year (he didn't).

Look, I'm interested in taking a fair and balanced view of the QB and the team and I do my best do that. As far as I'm concerned, the "bar" for Ponder is set right at doing his part to win games, no higher or lower. I don't care if he posts Rodgers-like numbers and 300 yard passing performances unless that's what the game plan calls for and that's what it takes for the Vikes to win that week. If the game plan calls for him to hand off to AD, take care of the football, convert some key third downs, and throw a TD to Rudolph, that's fine too if it results in a win. I'm not interested in characterizing him as more or less than he has been thus far and I think it's accurate to say that he's been a very inconsistent quarterback, not wholly good or bad and certainly not extraordinary.

And here Demi pretty much sums up in 2 sentences what I've been trying to say in all my Ponder bashing posts combined.

... and yet, what he and you seem to ignore is that Ponder did precisely what Demi is implying is necessary to win Super Bowls in the last of the 4 games Mondry posted about at the top of this thread. If you want more from Ponder than '"don't screw up", that's what he delivered in the win over Green Bay, a win that propelled the Vikings into the playoffs (and getting to the playoffs is a necessary step to winning the Super Bowl, no?). If I'm not mistaken, another requirement to winning a Super Bowl is the ability to defeat playoff caliber teams. The Vikes did that with Ponder at QB last year too and he played in an important role in some of those wins, certainly more than a "don't screw up" role.

Ponder played a significant role in losses to a few playoff teams as well so I'm not ignoring that. The upside is clear and the downside is clear. It's not hard to acknowledge both or to admit that we don't know which, if either, will ultimately define Ponder's career.

Jim

[Mothman]

First, I don't think Mothman was apologizing. He correctly pointed out that a still shot can be deceptive, and pointed out a couple of reasons why it might be that way.

That's exactly what I was doing, thank you. In that photo, the play looks like a missed opportunity but watching game film and capturing still photos to post here last year really drove home to me that a single captured moment in a play can be deceptive.

I added my own additional observation that might have also inhibited Ponder from making the pass. He admitted (as did I) that it may have been a missed opportunity, but the still photograph (in and of itself) is not the 'slam-dunk' indictment you apparently believe it to be. Your 2nd to last sentence: "Context or not" makes no sense. That's like saying "Cop fatally shoots boy" doesn't matter what the context is. What if the boy is shooting at the cops? What if the boy is unarmed and running away? Context is very important and shouldn't be dismissed. Has anyone actually watched/posted the video so that the still frame could be interpreted in proper context?

I did. I went back and watched it yesterday and I think it may have been a missed opportunity but I thought it was missed before that captured photo. On the play, Matthews brought pressure up the middle and that's why Ponder left the pocket. However, Matthews was picked up so rather than continuing to move to his left, Ponder probably could have sidestepped, set and thrown to that receiver. I say "probably" because sidestepping put him behind Kalil and I'm not sure if he could actually see the receiver from there, if he had a throwing lane.

By the time he reached the point in the play shown in that still shot, I believe throwing the ball would have been a mistake. He would have ended up throwing back to his right from his left and there's a good chance that would have ended poorly.

So, in a nutshell, I'd say Ponder was impatient on the play, overreacted to pressure and probably missed an opportunity. On the other hand, what do I know? I'm not trying to be rational, just taking "apologizing to a whole new level"...

[mansquatch]

I'll harp on this again. In the first 3 games he was handed leads by our other playmakers. So the case could be made he didn't do much to create those leads. That is fair. However, it is also fair to say that he didn't do much to lose those leads either. Again I return to Turnovers. The QB position isn't just about the plays he makes, it is also about the plays he doesn't make for the other team.

I know that doesn't make any of the yardage junkies happy, but the fact is if you are up by 14 and you have a half way competent defense you job is to milk the clock and not cough up the ball.

[Delaqure]

What all of this proves is Ponder can do What is necessary for us to win ball games. The question remains WILL he do it on a consistent basis. I don't think we have an answer to that yet. But we will before the year is out. If he can't then Demi and others can say "I told you so." If he can I hope they are as willing to eat crow. As for me I am on the fence and have been since his slump. This is my jump off the fence year.

[Mothman]

I'll harp on this again. In the first 3 games he was handed leads by our other playmakers. So the case could be made he didn't do much to create those leads. That is fair. However, it is also fair to say that he didn't do much to lose those leads either. Again I return to Turnovers. The QB position isn't just about the plays he makes, it is also about the plays he doesn't make for the other team.

I know that doesn't make any of the yardage junkies happy, but the fact is if you are up by 14 and you have a half way competent defense you job is to milk the clock and not cough up the ball.

Good post.

As Mondry said in the OP, in each of those 4 games, it looks like Ponder did what the coaches asked of him. I get the feeling some fans believe those 4 games are being held up as an example of superlative QB play from Ponder but that's not the case or at least it shouldn't be because that would be making too much of them. I think those games are mentioned because Ponder played winning football. He did so within the context of the team's overall performance and I thought that was how Mondry tried to frame the discussion. I've been thinking about it since posting earlier this morning and I think that issue of framing the discussion is at the center of a lot of these Ponder' threads. Some of his more vocal detractors try to re-frame the discussion in different (often hyperbolic or negative) terms. Consequently, Mondry's comment that "All in all each game looks to have Ponder doing what he has to, doing what the coaches asked of him" becomes Demi's "the team wins those games despite him" or "Isn't it about time we expect just a little more out of our QBs than "don't screw up"? "Don't screw up" doesn't win super bowls...or playoff games...".

The discussion was about analyzing the Vikings last 4 games and Ponder's role within them and Mondry took an unbiased, rational approach, attempting to view Ponder's role within the larger context of the games. On the other hand, Demi tried to re-frame the discussion in purely negative, dismissive terms so rather than Ponder having anything to do with those wins, the team won "despite him" and all he was asked to do was "don't screw up".

Reignman took a similar approach with my response to Mondry's OP, exaggerating the nature of my comments and then attempting re-frame the discussion with an intentionally negative overtone ("Exactly how low is the bar for Ponder?").

It would be nice if we could discuss this subject a little more reasonably and leave the exaggeration and excess out of it.

[The Breeze]

It's beyond tiresome. No one ever gets where or what they want out of life by focusing on obstacles. When you focus on obstacles, all you get is obstacles. Focusing on what you don't have or what you can't do leads to more of the same.

A lot of these negatively reframed comments have the tone of 10lb plates being hurled around the forum. It's more emotional than rational. I couldn't have fun watching sports if I felt like that. Football, for me, is a fun respite from the crazy world. And it's fun to come here, learn about stuff, joke around and be part of the horde~

[Mothman]

It's beyond tiresome. No one ever gets where or what they want out of life by focusing on obstacles. When you focus on obstacles, all you get is obstacles. Focusing on what you don't have or what you can't do leads to more of the same.

A lot of these negatively reframed comments have the tone of 10lb plates being hurled around the forum. It's more emotional than rational. I couldn't have fun watching sports if I felt like that. Football, for me, is a fun respite from the crazy world. And it's fun to come here, learn about stuff, joke around and be part of the horde~

I feel the same way and I think watching, following and discussing football should be fun. Sure, there are going to be games and seasons that are downers, players we like and dislike, etc. but overall, it should be an enjoyable experience. It's definitely more fun around here when people crack jokes and don't hurl those 10 lb. plates around!

What all of this proves is Ponder can do What is necessary for us to win ball games. The question remains WILL he do it on a consistent basis. I don't think we have an answer to that yet. But we will before the year is out. If he can't then Demi and others can say "I told you so." If he can I hope they are as willing to eat crow. As for me I am on the fence and have been since his slump. This is my jump off the fence year.

That's an interesting way to put it but I know just what you mean. I think a LOT of us are sitting on that same fence. I hope it's sturdy.

[mansquatch]

The Consistency question is THE Ponder question, IMO, and it has been THE question since week 17 last year. Ponder's QB coach said it in simple terms, he's seen him do everything he needs to do to be a successful NFL QB on film. He just hasn't seen him do it consistently week in and week out.

To me this refutes about 95% of the detractors out there. The question isn't can Ponder do it. He HAS done it. The question is can he do it for 17 weeks? We won't have an answer until we get into the Regular season.

So at this point everything is conjecture based on stale information. We can talk about changes to the WR and development of certain guys and that is great, but other than maybe short spurts in pre-season games we are not going to see him play at full NFL speed until September.

[Purple bruise]

It's beyond tiresome. No one ever gets where or what they want out of life by focusing on obstacles. When you focus on obstacles, all you get is obstacles. Focusing on what you don't have or what you can't do leads to more of the same.

A lot of these negatively reframed comments have the tone of 10lb plates being hurled around the forum. It's more emotional than rational. I couldn't have fun watching sports if I felt like that. Football, for me, is a fun respite from the crazy world. And it's fun to come here, learn about stuff, joke around and be part of the horde~

You nailed it. I have lots of hobbies and activities but one of my favorite things to do is watch and discuss football, especially the Purple.
I have yet to comprehend how any of the cynics and constant naysayers can get any enjoyment out of the Vikings when all they do is constantly bash nearly every aspect of the team. My best guess it that this negative attitude must spill over into their lives and as you so wisely posted " Football, for me, is a fun respite from the crazy world." This is absolutely true, chill out people enjoy the team, the game and realize it is just a sport.
Not many are imagining that Ponder will one day be in the Pro Bowl or that the team is destined for the Super Bowl but for me anyway it is a kick to watch this team improve and for them to strive for those goals.

[mondry]

The Consistency question is THE Ponder question, IMO, and it has been THE question since week 17 last year. Ponder's QB coach said it in simple terms, he's seen him do everything he needs to do to be a successful NFL QB on film. He just hasn't seen him do it consistently week in and week out.

To me this refutes about 95% of the detractors out there. The question isn't can Ponder do it. He HAS done it. The question is can he do it for 17 weeks? We won't have an answer until we get into the Regular season.

I mostly agree but I think even this is a little bit too much expectation wise. Most QB's (like 99%) aren't amazing all 16 weeks in a row. Heck I remember we picked off eli manning like 4 times and slaughtered the Giants, then they went on to win the super bowl 2 months later.

Looking at the QBR's which I know isn't the all purpose answer, it's the simplest way for me to do as little work for this example! Ponder was "consistent" in 9 out of 16 games with a QBR of at least 80, we went 7-2. There were 7 games he played "poorly", or had a QBR lower than 80 and we went 3-4.

If he gets his QBR up to say 85+ in 12 out of 16 games that'd be huge too as so far it looks like we'd win most of those games in that case; and still win some of the games he didn't. I guess my point is, he's not all that far off from where he needs to be, but he does need to be more consistent. Raise up the lows, and continue improving the highs. As I've stated in other threads though, I believe the whole team experienced "lows" at the same time as Ponder became more "inconsistent" and I believe as a team they "figured it out" by the end of last year. You don't rattle off 4 wins, most of them completely dominating your opponents without something clicking.

[VikingHoard]

If he can't then Demi and others can say "I told you so." If he can I hope they are as willing to eat crow.

That's how almost everyone in the world would look at it but I disagree. To me, "being right" or "being wrong" is first about how you conduct yourself during a discussion, and only secondly about the honesty with which you examined the evidence and the validity with which you drew your conclusion. Notice that whether the conclusion later "proves", (in quotes because more evidence can often come even later "proving" something else), to be true has no bearing, in my opinion, on whether you were right or wrong.

Take for example, Pete Prisco back when Favre joined the Vikes. The man was livid and all his columns reflected that. There was no room for the possibility of Favre succeeding in Minnesota in any of his many columns, which were so hate-filled and ranting I can find no better description for them than a many months-long temper tantrum. Day after day, column after column he repeatedly called Favre names, condemned him for retiring and then unretiring as if it were the single most despicable act an athlete could do. He insulted the Vikings for taking him, and even dragged his wife Deanna into it, calling her a "media whore" and saying she wouldn't let Favre retire because she refused to give up the "attention spotlight". Finally, I believe it was in week 10, Pete Prisco acknowledged that Favre was doing a good job as the Vikings QB with the following sentence, "I was wrong, what of it?".

You might think Prisco should have done more to "eat crow" and that had Favre succeeded he would have been justified to say "I told you so" but I think he was wrong regardless of what Favre did. First off, he didn't conduct himself in a manner befitting the dignity of an 8 year old, let alone a professional sports writer. Secondly, he was obviously drawing his belief about how Favre would perform from his emotions, rather than an objective analysis of the facts. This isn't to say that a person couldn't believe rationally that Favre was going to fail in MN. A man I know IRL told me he thought that, and his reasoning was that he felt age had finally caught up to Bret and that he hadn't shown the arm strength or accuracy with the Jets that made him famous in Green Bay. He also acknowledged that there was still a good chance Favre could succeed, or do average. He thought that Favre failing was only the most likely of the three possibilities, not that it was guaranteed. He never insulted anyone and his reasoning was based on valid analysis of the evidence which he'd seen, (note that you can never say "all evidence"), and a realistic understanding of the possibility that his belief was going to be incorrect. Therefore, I wouldn't say he was wrong. I don't think he needed to eat crow, and I'm sure he wouldn't have enjoyed saying "I told you so" after seeing Favre and the Vikes fail.

Getting back to Delaqure's post, I am one of the Ponder detractors. I don't expect him to do well. I don't say that there's no chance he'll be good, but I do think it unlikely. I'm not going to call him names or hate him or anything for it, and I hope that he indeed does great things and becomes the franchise player we've all longed for. Should it happen, you won't get to see me eat crow, as I still won't see myself as having been wrong, only my belief. And even then it would only be true that with the addition of new evidence my old belief would no longer supported by the entirety of what I've seen. None of which would have anything to do with me being wrong. On the flip side, if he does as I expect you won't have to hear me say I told you so either.

[Funkytown]

VikingHoard, are you some kind of Professor of Logic or something? That was intense. I need a break.

[VikingHoard]

VikingHoard, are you some kind of Professor of Logic or something? That was intense. I need a break.

Ok, but don't take too long! You need to make sure you spend enough time with the material to be ready for tomorrow's test on it!

[SLCVikefan]

That's how almost everyone in the world would look at it but I disagree. To me, "being right" or "being wrong" is first about how you conduct yourself during a discussion, and only secondly about the honesty with which you examined the evidence and the validity with which you drew your conclusion. Notice that whether the conclusion later "proves", (in quotes because more evidence can often come even later "proving" something else), to be true has no bearing, in my opinion, on whether you were right or wrong.

Take for example, Pete Prisco back when Favre joined the Vikes. The man was livid and all his columns reflected that. There was no room for the possibility of Favre succeeding in Minnesota in any of his many columns, which were so hate-filled and ranting I can find no better description for them than a many months-long temper tantrum. Day after day, column after column he repeatedly called Favre names, condemned him for retiring and then unretiring as if it were the single most despicable act an athlete could do. He insulted the Vikings for taking him, and even dragged his wife Deanna into it, calling her a "media whore" and saying she wouldn't let Favre retire because she refused to give up the "attention spotlight". Finally, I believe it was in week 10, Pete Prisco acknowledged that Favre was doing a good job as the Vikings QB with the following sentence, "I was wrong, what of it?".

You might think Prisco should have done more to "eat crow" and that had Favre succeeded he would have been justified to say "I told you so" but I think he was wrong regardless of what Favre did. First off, he didn't conduct himself in a manner befitting the dignity of an 8 year old, let alone a professional sports writer. Secondly, he was obviously drawing his belief about how Favre would perform from his emotions, rather than an objective analysis of the facts. This isn't to say that a person couldn't believe rationally that Favre was going to fail in MN. A man I know IRL told me he thought that, and his reasoning was that he felt age had finally caught up to Bret and that he hadn't shown the arm strength or accuracy with the Jets that made him famous in Green Bay. He also acknowledged that there was still a good chance Favre could succeed, or do average. He thought that Favre failing was only the most likely of the three possibilities, not that it was guaranteed. He never insulted anyone and his reasoning was based on valid analysis of the evidence which he'd seen, (note that you can never say "all evidence"), and a realistic understanding of the possibility that his belief was going to be incorrect. Therefore, I wouldn't say he was wrong. I don't think he needed to eat crow, and I'm sure he wouldn't have enjoyed saying "I told you so" after seeing Favre and the Vikes fail.

Getting back to Delaqure's post, I am one of the Ponder detractors. I don't expect him to do well. I don't say that there's no chance he'll be good, but I do think it unlikely. I'm not going to call him names or hate him or anything for it, and I hope that he indeed does great things and becomes the franchise player we've all longed for. Should it happen, you won't get to see me eat crow, as I still won't see myself as having been wrong, only my belief. And even then it would only be true that with the addition of new evidence my old belief would no longer supported by the entirety of what I've seen. None of which would have anything to do with me being wrong. On the flip side, if he does as I expect you won't have to hear me say I told you so either.

I think they call that "jumping to conclusions". Too many think they have all the evidence before all the evidence is in. Eating an unripe fruit. You know it's going to be good(maybe not the best you've ever had) but not till it's ripe. Most fans know that it takes an average player 3 years to mature. 2/3rds the way in and the internet gurus want to proclaim their brilliance and/or your idiocy.