Vikings Message Board.Com

I think the last thing Demi's agenda is, is stealthy

The Breeze wrote: Throw in the fact that his longest relationship with any of his wideouts is 17 games, 16 of which the guy was significantly useless due to a nerve injury, the next longest about 6, all the rest just 1 game.....last weeks game!

While I agree with that, doesn't this give traction to those who were complaining about Ponder not playing enough in the pre-season? I wasn't sure that was a huge issue, quite frankly, but if I (or others) use that fact in mitigation of Ponder's poor performance, isn't it a valid criticism (that he didn't play enough in pre-season) then? Not trying to 'stir the pot'. just trying to be fair...

Just Me wrote: While I agree with that, doesn't this give traction to those who were complaining about Ponder not playing enough in the pre-season? I wasn't sure that was a huge issue, quite frankly, but if I (or others) use that fact in mitigation of Ponder's poor performance, isn't it a valid criticism (that he didn't play enough in pre-season) then? Not trying to 'stir the pot'. just trying to be fair...

You can't. Ponder sucks. HE will never be a good QB. Not unless the Vikings cut him and he goes somewhere else. Then he will become a HOF QB or take his team to the Super Bowl. Remember, more ex-Viking QB's have been to the Super Bowl the last 30 years then the Vikings have.

Just Me wrote: While I agree with that, doesn't this give traction to those who were complaining about Ponder not playing enough in the pre-season? I wasn't sure that was a huge issue, quite frankly, but if I (or others) use that fact in mitigation of Ponder's poor performance, isn't it a valid criticism (that he didn't play enough in pre-season) then? Not trying to 'stir the pot'. just trying to be fair...

I'm not trying to dismiss any criticism of Ponder. I think the preseason debate is a valid fair concern and more to the point I'm trying to get across. I'm saying there's a whole lot of things that are clogging the passing game, not just Ponder.

Let's all look at Tom Brady's performance over the first two games against what are supposed to be drastically inferior divisional opponents. I think the Pats were double digit favs in both games that they barely eeked out.

48 for 91 and 458yds 4.8yds per att.
3 sacks 3td 1int with the pats offense going 15-38 on 3rd down.

They beat Buffalo despite 3 TOs (2by Tom)

The reason he is struggling is because he is not on the same page as his WRs. It was pure comedy watching him throw fits on the sideine against the Jets. His WRs were open, he just couldn't hit them.
Brady and his new receivers played together in the preseason....and still they are stinking it up early on. The biggest reason they won those two games is because their defense played great, giving up only 24 pts total and causing several TOs.

The Pats run a much more pass friendly offense, meaning their scheme, motions, formations and protection packages are designed to give Brady time to work. He got plenty of time, his receivers got open and he couldn't hit them.

I think it illustrates how many things the Viking offense is facing and needs to overcome before defenses are going to respect the pass. I don't think just having a Tom Brady under center, for example (and we certainly don't), is all this team is missing. It would help speed the process up having a savy veteran and a well established OC who would understand and implement the benefit of having a unique RB more involved in the passing game ......but we don't have that. We have growing pains.

Edit to add: I think it's a fair asumption that if the Pats D wasn't playing well and facing rookie QBs, they'd be 0-2.

The Breeze wrote:I'm not trying to dismiss any criticism of Ponder. I think the preseason debate is a valid fair concern and more to the point I'm trying to get across. I'm saying there's a whole lot of things that are clogging the passing game, not just Ponder.

Point taken. FWIW, I didn't think you were dismissing any criticism of Ponder. I, however, had questioned whether or not it had any merit to critique the lesser playing time for #7 in the pre-season. Frankly I saw the additional time as having little value. If you're correct (about he and his receivers not quite being in sync), my view on that would have been wrong.

Just Me wrote:Point taken. FWIW, I didn't think you were dismissing any criticism of Ponder. I, however, had questioned whether or not it had any merit to critique the lesser playing time for #7 in the pre-season. Frankly I saw the additional time as having little value. If you're correct (about he and his receivers not quite being in sync), my view on that would have been wrong.

I think you're being tough on yourself there. There's merit on both sides of preseason playing time argument. I think the question is what's the "sweet spot"? How much additional playing time would it have taken to make a real difference and at what point would the team's offensive starters have been put at risk for too long? Personally, I find it hard to believe another 15 snaps or so would have made much difference. If they had played Ponder and the starters for 3 quarters per game, maybe that would have made a difference but that would have cut into the time they needed to evaluate the rest of the roster and exposed their starters to a lot more potential for injuries.

Just Me wrote: Point taken. FWIW, I didn't think you were dismissing any criticism of Ponder. I, however, had questioned whether or not it had any merit to critique the lesser playing time for #7 in the pre-season. Frankly I saw the additional time as having little value. If you're correct (about he and his receivers not quite being in sync), my view on that would have been wrong.

I just threw the Ponder disclaimer up front for anyone waiting to pile on and say that pointing to the O-line and receiver timing is excusing Ponder's shortcomings. Not suggesting you were implying that at all.

I'm beyond wanting to pick that bone any longer and am looking at what can be done to help Ponder's progress, both with personell and scheme.

In regards to the preseason: I wasn't moved much by the thought that a few more series would have been all that beneficial. Obviously it wouldn't have hurt, unless there was a significant injury.
It didn't appear to help Brady that much...although he did lose Amendola in week 1.
I just felt the timing issue would be a work in progress that would be helped a lot by ADs contribution, and would require the defense to carry the team early on.
I still feel that is the case...only they gotta be on the plus side on TOs as well as find ways to slow down defenses attacking the LOS and stuffing AD. If that's formations, blocking schemes, play calling.....whatever helps create as consistent a pocket as possible for the QB, I'm for it.

I still feel that there won't be a whole lot to anaylize until the bye....but I would rather this staff be more proactive than reactive as far as modifications\adjutments go.