Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: Is the personal shot really necessary?
I didn't even mention Christian Ponder in my post but I don't see any reason why he couldn't do it. He's posted ratings that high in the past.
I wouldn't have been confident that Fitz could do what he did!
With about 6 years of additional experience, he should be better but I honestly don't care to compare them. I see no point in it other than engaging in the kind of "grass is always greener" complaining that goes on around here all the time. I'd like the Vikings to have a starting QB better than either Ponder or Fitzpatrick have been in their NFL careers so frankly, I don't care which one is better right now. It's the Cassel vs. Ponder debate all over again but involving a player who isn't even on the team.

As I said, kudos to Fitzpatrick for a job well done.

Exactly the kind of response I expected. Thank you.

Also, my intent wasn't to directly compare them as if "Fitzpatrick would have us 6 wins by now" or "Ponder sucks compared to this guy." Again, I shared some general thoughts about the opinions around here that there are backups in the NFL better than our starter. Heck, I don't need to preach it. Stats show it. So, are you disagreeing? Are you saying that there aren't any backups in the NFL better than our current starter? Because if so, we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because I think there are. I don't think I was griping or complaining too darn much. I was just sharing some stats that I found interesting in regards to previous discussions about our quarterback situation and in particular passer rating. Regardless, I don't think that's what you're saying, though. I think you're saying there is no point in discussing it. Just like my post from a day or so ago. Sorry. I guess I'm a little off on what is and isn't worth discussing. *sigh* Be sure to keep reminding me. I'll be sure to get the hang of it real soon.

Also, I find it interesting that you don't like to get in the "grass is always greener discussions," but you sure do like to say, "it isn't always greener" and basically "quit talking about it." You do involve yourself, just not like others. But okay.

Oh, and in case you missed it, I was somewhat talking about Ponder, so that is why I continued with the comparisons--and asked you to share your thoughts on Ponder's potential passer ratings vs. those teams. If you don't think Ponder would do better than Fitz, then you agree with my original point. What is all the fuss about? Oh yeah. Because it's not worth discussing. I apologize again.

I'm done discussing it then. It wasn't even meant to be a big ol' discussion. Just thought it was pretty interesting and impressive, especially for a backup.

Purple bruise wrote: You are the only one that I know that constantly tries to start crap with him.

Wow. I start crap with Jim? CONSTANTLY? I didn't realize Jim was some sort of victim...? He is? Wow. And *I* start crap with him? Can you show me where? I don't think Jim and I have real beef. And when we do disagree, he usually responds to my general posts and then it goes from there. I guess, yeah, I guess that means I started it. Totally.

Anyways, I'd rather talk about Fitzpatrick than Jim or me...but that's just me.

mondry wrote:I've always like fitzpatrick and would have preferred him over cassel as our back up. With this coaching staff though it's not like either would have gotten to play.

Yeah. I like him, too. He gets a little too brave at times, though. And I don't care, he never ever ever deserved that huge contract from Buffalo. I know he was doing well, and they were proud of him, but they really lost it there for a minute. Either way, he seems like a cool guy. I'm glad he's performing well. I'm shocked to see he's performing that well, regardless of who he's playing against, because I'm not convinced the guys around him are all that special. I just found those to be some interesting stats. And heck, that winning touchdown drive helped me in the pick 4 contest, so...I have to like the guy for a week. He saved the day!

MelanieMFunk wrote:Exactly the kind of response I expected. Thank you.

Also, my intent wasn't to directly compare them as if "Fitzpatrick would have us 6 wins by now" or "Ponder sucks compared to this guy." Again, I shared some general thoughts about the opinions around here that there are backups in the NFL better than our starter. Heck, I don't need to preach it. Stats show it. So, are you disagreeing? Are you saying that there aren't any backups in the NFL better than our current starter? Because if so, we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because I think there are. I don't think I was griping or complaining too darn much. I was just sharing some stats that I found interesting in regards to previous discussions about our quarterback situation and in particular passer rating. Regardless, I don't think that's what you're saying, though. I think you're saying there is no point in discussing it. Just like my post from a day or so ago. Sorry. I guess I'm a little off on what is and isn't worth discussing. *sigh* Be sure to keep reminding me. I'll be sure to get the hang of it real soon.

Also, I find it interesting that you don't like to get in the "grass is always greener discussions," but you sure do like to say, "it isn't always greener" and basically "quit talking about it." You do involve yourself, just not like others. But okay.

Oh, and in case you missed it, I was somewhat talking about Ponder, so that is why I continued with the comparisons--and asked you to share your thoughts on Ponder's potential passer ratings vs. those teams. If you don't think Ponder would do better than Fitz, then you agree with my original point. What is all the fuss about? Oh yeah. Because it's not worth discussing. I apologize again.

I'm done discussing it then. It wasn't even meant to be a big ol' discussion. Just thought it was pretty interesting and impressive, especially for a backup.

Just to be clear, I didn't tell anybody they should quit talking about anything. I'm not a moderator and I don't run this board so as far as I'm concerned you are perfectly free to discuss whatever you want to discuss and so is everybody else. I simply expressed why I wasn't interested in comparing Ponder and Fitzpatrick.

Mothman wrote:I didn't tell anybody they should quit talking about anything. I'm not a moderator and I don't run this board so as far as I'm concerned you are perfectly free to discuss whatever you want to discuss. I simply expressed why I wasn't interested in comparing Ponder and Fitzpatrick.

And, truthfully, neither was I. I was simply giving an example of where I see a backup being better than our starter. It wasn't meant to be this big, in-depth comparison between Fitz and Ponder. It wasn't even about those two necessarily. It was about the overall situation. It was just an example--a little validation you could say. I'm with you; I want someone better than both of these guys, but that really wasn't part of my original point.

And what I mean when I say that you suggest to "quit talking about it" is when you make a few general remarks, then I ask you to pick a side based on those remarks (about my original point), and then you come back with "I just don't see a point in discussing this." So, then why comment at all? I take that as you coming in to say, "Hey, just keep an open mind. Keep things in perspective"--with that being your main point, without even really discussing mine, because you refuse to get off the fence so to speak. Moth, I don't need that. I got that. I can keep things in perspective and form an argument one way or the other. I'm just not sure why you say it's not worth discussing for you, when you are, sometimes, doing just that. It seems as if, sometimes, you want to discuss it until someone asks you to pick a side and roll with it. You like to keep it general. I get that. It's being level-headed. I'm that way too, mostly, but sometimes I can go out on a limb and talk about "what ifs" and whatnot. It's fun. Stats get boring after a while. If that's all we discussed around here, it'd get awfully boring real quick.

MelanieMFunk wrote: And, truthfully, neither was I. I was simply giving an example of where I see a backup being better than our starter. It wasn't meant to be this big, in-depth comparison between Fitz and Ponder. It wasn't even about those two necessarily. It was about the overall situation. It was just an example--a little validation you could say. I'm with you; I want someone better than both of these guys, but that really wasn't part of my original point.

And what I mean when I say that you suggest to "quit talking about it" is when you make a few general remarks, then I ask you to pick a side based on those remarks (about my original point), and then you come back with "I just don't see a point in discussing this." So, then why comment at all? I take that as you coming in to say, "Hey, just keep an open mind. Keep things in perspective"--with that being your main point, without even really discussing mine, because you refuse to get off the fence so to speak. Moth, I don't need that. I got that. I can keep things in perspective and form an argument one way or the other. I'm just not sure why you say it's not worth discussing for you, when you are, sometimes, doing just that. It seems as if, sometimes, you want to discuss it until someone asks you to pick a side and roll with it. You like to keep it general. I get that. It's being level-headed. I'm that way too, mostly, but sometimes I can go out on a limb and talk about "what ifs" and whatnot. It's fun. Stats get boring after a while. If that's all we discussed around here, it'd get awfully boring real quick.

Its not worth it. Arguing over Ponder ) He is a turd. He will be a career backup once he and Fraizer leave MN.

Gay marriage is legal now, too bad plural marriage isn't now that he's married.