Vikings Message Board.Com

The Breeze wrote: Funny...I was born in Cedar City, now I live in So. Oregon.

SLC is a pretty nice city......nice to have someone on the board from there~

I've been on this board for quite awhile....work in SLC, live a bit up north. But, yeah, it's great having another one here

The Breeze wrote: Nice. I spent a year and a half in PTown going to school, but it was after you'd left. I studied 'apologist theory ' and 'post modern homerism'.....didn't get my degree though.

Crax wrote: I've been on this board for quite awhile....work in SLC, live a bit up north. But, yeah, it's great having another one here

Ahhh man....I never noticed your location til now. Guess that makes you first on the depth chart in Utah lol. North of SLC gets quite stunning. I'm fond of Logan Canyon myself.....saw a moose there once when I was still a hippie~

Just Me wrote: First, I don't think Mothman was apologizing.

Did you just apologize for the apologizer? Haha sorry I couldn't resist.

Mothman wrote: ... and with that, you illustrated why I used the word determined. I said nothing at all about 3rd down conversions being extraordinary

No but it certainly was implied. Your defense of Ponder in that particular post was all about your memory of late game 3rd down completions as if it were ... well ... extraordinary. But my naysayer determination was purely sarcasm. I really hope the guy pulls his head out of his backside soon, but I just don't see it.

But for all our sake, I just want them to take the training wheels off and let the guy sink or swim. This coddling garbage is just prolonging our misery. Either he's got it or he doesn't, trying to hide him isn't going to get us any closer to a Lombardi.

Mothman wrote:... 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

I don't know about you, but I saw far more downside than up last year. But what you're overlooking is that it's possible and even desirable to improve your playoff seeding if you realistically hope to win a super bowl. With Ponder, at best we're going to be competing for the 6th seed year in and year out. Heck we just witnessed one of the best seasons a RB has ever had and it was only good enough to barely squeak in as a 6th seed. Clearly we need a big improvement at the QB position to enter the championship discussion. Without AD we're not even in the playoff discussion. Seriously, what good is a "just don't screw it up" type QB without a back like AD? And why settle? Why not get the best player possible at the position? I want a QB that can carry the team if we need him to, and that's not Ponder. Ponder is Bubby Brister 2.0 and we're a bottom feeder if AD goes down.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Culpepper was a franchise QB as far as I'm concerned. It's not his fault his knee exploded.

It is his fault that he turned into a turnover machine though xD. Personally I think they gave up on him too soon, but he did have Moss when he was putting up the big numbers.

mansquatch wrote: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.

Got it, so what you're saying is we just gotta keep hoping our play makers give us early leads and keep hoping AD rushes for 2k yards so we don't ever have to worry about the QB position? Sounds realistic.

Mothman wrote:As Mondry said in the OP, in each of those 4 games, it looks like Ponder did what the coaches asked of him.

And it doesn't bother you that the coaches don't ask him to do much, or that it doesn't seem like they want him to do much? That worries the hell outa me. And yeah I know, we have AD and it's just good strategy blah blah blah. All that aside it should still be a concern. We're pretty much screwed if we're ever in a game where we need to rely on the passing game.

Mothman wrote: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.

I fail to see where I exaggerated. And whether you felt it was negative or not, it's still a fair question. Sorry I'm not a rah rah, we're #1 type of fan. To me that's unreasonable. I see a huge weakness at the most important position on my football team and I don't agree with the way it's being addressed.

The Breeze wrote: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~

Dr. Phil is that you? xD

Mothman wrote:I feel the same way and I think watching, following and discussing football should be fun.

Who's not having fun? I thought this was a discussion board? Would it be much of a discussion if we all agreed on everything? No I think that would be kinda boring.

Reignman wrote:No but it certainly was implied. Your defense of Ponder in that particular post was all about your memory of late game 3rd down completions as if it were ... well ... extraordinary.

That sounds like something you're projecting onto the comments. Nobody else seemed to read them that way and it definitely wasn't my intent to imply that those plays were extraordinary. I didn't use that word or a similar word like remarkable to describe them and they obviously weren't extraordinary plays in the first place.

I don't know about you, but I saw far more downside than up last year. But what you're overlooking is that it's possible and even desirable to improve your playoff seeding if you realistically hope to win a super bowl. With Ponder, at best we're going to be competing for the 6th seed year in and year out.

I'm not overlooking that, I just don't believe improving beyond the sixth seed is an impossibility with Ponder at QB. The Vikes were within reach of better playoff seeding last year and they might have achieved it even without better play from Ponder, who was certainly not the only reason they lost games in 2012. I've watched enough football to know that many QBs continue to develop and actually play better in their third season than in their first or second so I see no reason to assume Ponder has hit his ceiling and the team has hit theirs with him at QB.

I realize Ponder isn't ever likely to lead the league in passing or become an all-time great and it would be wonderful if the Vikes landed a QB like that. I don't think they should stop looking for that type of player either. However, we all know truly great QBs aren't just sitting out there waiting to be plucked up (especially in August) and it's not always obvious who will be a great QB. Meanwhile, it's Ponder's job and I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do this season. Hopefully, by the end of it, he'll have sold those of us on the fence about him and convinced a few people who believe he has no chance to reconsider their views.

Reignman wrote:Did you just apologize for the apologizer? Haha sorry I couldn't resist...

Well, maybe nomenclature is the problem here. If by "apologizing", you meant "explaining", then yes. I was further expounding on his explanation. I'll remember that "apology" and "explanation" are interchangeable going forward.

On a more serious note, I don't know that Ponder has what it takes to be our QB. I'm hoping he shows me something this year to lead me to believe this isn't Jackson Part II. But given that he has shown incremental improvement, we had no real good options this year for a replacement anyway, and he has performed well in situations where the game hung in the balance, I'm inclined to let the year play out before I pass ultimate judgment. Obviously, YMMV...

Just Me wrote: Well, maybe nomenclature is the problem here. If by "apologizing", you meant "explaining", then yes. I was further expounding on his explanation. I'll remember that "apology" and "explanation" are interchangeable going forward.

They are? I find that extrarordinary.

he was handed leads in the first three games? you sure about that? like against jacksonville where we were down by 3 with a minute to go and ponder led us down the field into field goal range to send it to overtime? and he was handed a lead in the colts game where im not sure we ever led? and against the niners where he threw an amazing back peddling pass on 4th and 1 for a td? and AP on had 86 yards and ponder had several other amazing passes...but yea, that wasnt any skill on ponders part...you must not watch football very closely. some of you are just pure haters.

smoothoperator wrote:he was handed leads in the first three games? you sure about that? like against jacksonville where we were down by 3 with a minute to go and ponder led us down the field into field goal range to send it to overtime? and he was handed a lead in the colts game where im not sure we ever led? and against the niners where he threw an amazing back peddling pass on 4th and 1 for a td? and AP on had 86 yards and ponder had several other amazing passes...but yea, that wasnt any skill on ponders part...you must not watch football very closely. some of you are just pure haters.

Which is why I used the word "determined" to describe some of them earlier in the thread.

Sigh... I'm still trying to figure out how the coaches are trying to hide Ponder while he's apparently wearing training wheels and being coddled, all while he also started every regular season game last year, faced the media after the games, threw to all levels of the field and was trusted to throw the ball and/or bring the team back from behind late in several games. It makes no sense to me. How is he being hidden or coddled? I have a hard time believing they gave Peterson the ball so much to protect Ponder. I think they gave it to him because he's the best weapon they possess. The short passing offense seems far more likely to stem from Musgrave's deep roots in the west coast system and the personnel they had at WR and TE than from some effort to protect Ponder. I don't even understand what he'd be protected from... criticism? There's never been a shortage of that where Ponder is concerned.

I just don't understand the nature of some of the criticism.

Reignman wrote:But for all our sake, I just want them to take the training wheels off and let the guy sink or swim. This coddling garbage is just prolonging our misery. Either he's got it or he doesn't, trying to hide him isn't going to get us any closer to a Lombardi.

It's amazing how differently people can perceive things. I'm not saying one way is correct here, just stating that some believe:

A) With a west coast, run-first offense with the NFL MVP/first ballot Hall of Fame at running back and a top-5 run-blocking offensive line it makes sense to continue to play this style, no matter who is at QB, especially if your running game is clearly the team's strength and the way this offense is constructed, to the tune of an average of > 6 yards/carry.

while others believe that

B) By not having a pass-first, vertical-style offense this is a reflection of a coaching staff hiding or coddling the QB.

Obviously I'm in the (A) camp. I'm not sure, especially given the pass-blocking and "separation skills" of our receivers to this point (and, admittedly, Ponder's own limitations) it would be a wise move to "take the reigns off" and let Ponder chuck the ball 25-35 times/game. That's just not the team's identity, nor in their best interest for sustained success. And I still believe this idea that they are "coddling" Ponder by having him throw bubble screens was more of a reflection of the skill attributes of Harvin (and now Patterson) in their scheme than lack of confidence in Ponder's intermediate-long pass abilities (he's shown he has the ability/accuracy to make those throws). As others have pointed out, those plays (which I think have been harped on so much people think they happened much more often than they actually did) were quite successful, so why in the world would they stop doing them? Especially if they have another guy that can get 8+ yards each time? Because it just doesn't feel like enough of a challenge for Ponder? That seems like a strange way to run an offense.

I'll ask this: does it not make sense to continue to judge Ponder within the confines of the offense as opposed to a hypothetical, pass-first offense in which he may not be able to succeed? I suppose it's really a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Is the offense geared towards the run/short passes first or is it geared this way because of Ponder's perceived limitations? I think recent history has shown the former, but what do I know?

Mothman wrote:
They are? I find that extrarordinary.

...with an extra "r" even! Rar!

...had to.

dead_poet wrote: It's amazing how differently people can perceive things.

...and that is why the epic Battle of Ponder continues.

Echoing what Jim and DP have posted: I have not ever seen anyone on this forum proclaim anything of the sort that CP has been extraordinary and\or remarkable over the course of his short career. I have seen some extraodinary remarks by a few posters who seem to have the capacity for rational discussion until the topic is HC or QB....then they turn into Percy Harvin in the weightroom.

Forum Divas.....who woulda thunk?

I find it to be bordeline foolishness to offer them rational replies, cause it doesn't seem like they are here for that. It's like trying to convince Rainman that everything will be OK if he misses Wopner, or of the quality of K-Mart.

There is plenty of interesting discussion here with ample agreement and disagreement of a variety of subjects. I think everyone would agree that not everyone agrees on Ponder...and I would disagree with the sentiment that anyone has implied he has shown enough to be the answer at QB. It's pretty much an out right lie to suggest anyone here has done that.

They don't think it be like it is, but it do~

dead_poet wrote: It's amazing how differently people can perceive things. I'm not saying one way is correct here, just stating that some believe:

A) With a west coast, run-first offense with the NFL MVP/first ballot Hall of Fame at running back and a top-5 run-blocking offensive line it makes sense to continue to play this style, no matter who is at QB, especially if your running game is clearly the team's strength and the way this offense is constructed, to the tune of an average of > 6 yards/carry.

while others believe that

B) By not having a pass-first, vertical-style offense this is a reflection of a coaching staff hiding or coddling the QB.

Obviously I'm in the (A) camp.

I am too and the reason I firmly believe the correct answer is A is because Leslie Frazier made it clear long before Christian Ponder ever took a snap for the Vikings that he planned to emphasize the running game because the Vikings had Adrian Peterson. The Vikings know they have a running back who could end up ranking as one of the all-time greats and they intend to feature him in their offense.

I'm not sure, especially given the pass-blocking and "separation skills" of our receivers to this point (and, admittedly, Ponder's own limitations) it would be a wise move to "take the reigns off" and let Ponder chuck the ball 25-35 times/game. That's just not the team's identity, nor in their best interest for sustained success. And I still believe this idea that they are "coddling" Ponder by having him throw bubble screens was more of a reflection of the skill attributes of Harvin (and now Patterson) in their scheme than lack of confidence in Ponder's intermediate-long pass abilities (he's shown he has the ability/accuracy to make those throws). As others have pointed out, those plays (which I think have been harped on so much people think they happened much more often than they actually did) were quite successful, so why in the world would they stop doing them? Especially if they have another guy that can get 8+ yards each time? Because it just doesn't feel like enough of a challenge for Ponder? That seems like a strange way to run an offense.

Strange isn't the word I'd use for it.

A lot of the criticism really seems to boil down to the offensive style the Vikes are playing vs. the offensive style fans want to see. There's an understandable desire for the Vikes to find their Tom Brady or Peyton Manning and for the Vikes to field the kind of high-flying passing game those players have been involved in over the years. ponder doesn't appear to fit that mold and the Vikings aren't running that kind of offense so the question of effectiveness seems to get set aside in favor of a "grass is always greener" mentality.

I'll ask this: does it not make sense to continue to judge Ponder within the confines of the offense as opposed to a hypothetical, pass-first offense in which he may not be able to succeed?

... and which they may not even want to run? You know my answer to that question.

MelanieMFunk wrote:
...with an extra "r" even! Rar!

...had to.

LOL! I was channeling Scooby Doo. "Ruh-roh! That play was extraRORdinary!"