The Minnesota Vikings are OFFICIALLY Scary!!

[Uptown Murf]

Playmaking ability can't be quantified by stats. I live in Seattle, so I'm well aware of the numbers Carlson put up his rookie and sophomore seasons, but you have to understand how putrid that team was. Even worse, were its receivers. The passing game for that offense was heavily predicated on getting the ball to the TE's. Not saying John's stats were completely inflated, but that he's probably a few notches below that type of production....On paper.

We can rattle stats off all day, but that doesn't show the true measure of what I'm talking about here. Rudolph is a premiere red zone target and I just feel he can make catches that Carlson can't do so easily.

Sorry bro this is a league of production. Stats are an indicator of production. I'm sure ppl would like to say a guy like Ray Rice or someone is better than Adrian Peterson, but his production doesn't warrant it.

Also when you see "Uptown Murf" is the poster, just imagine I live in the same exact city that you live in. There is not a coaching staff, scheme or roster the past 10 seasons that I don't know inside out. It's what I do. I'm like reign man. I record pretty much everything college and pro and transfer it to tape and watch it over and over and over an.....

So I'm very aware of the personnel on the 08/09 Hawks teams when Carlson was drafted. He played for Holmgren then our former coach here Jim Mora jr. Their receiving corps was about as putrid as the Vikings with Rudolph the past two seasons. TJ Housh, Nate Burleson, and Deion Branch pretty much sucked or were let downs imo, but as a whole were better than Michael Jenkins and Jerome Simpson. Julius Jones and TJ Duckett weren't that good either at RB. The Vikings and the Seahawks have a lot of interchangeable personnel and schemes over the years. I see no different in what Rudolph and Carlson had to work with, outside of a monster run game. And the Vikings defense was way better.

It could be argued that if Adrian Peterson weren't on last seasons team you could have very well been 4-12 like the Seahawks were with say a Julius Jones as the RB...It's the Vikings offseason additions that officially make this team something to contend with. The talent is spread out now...So Rudolph may very well be a better redzone threat - but being in an offense with the best player in football, who is the PREMIERE redzone threat in the league - makes his job much easier.

And my usage of stats is to tell the whole story. You saying that someone is better is an opinion, same thing for me. The Stats are something that's not disputable because it's tangible. After two seasons Rudolph had 12 TD's and Carlson had 13 TD's...The facts are the facts. They aren't playing against air. No defenders were just letting Carlson score b/c his team sucked...But I feel you, you are a big Rudolph fan, as we all are.

[PacificNorseWest]

What league isn't a production league? Again, you're straying away from my point. Kyle Rudolph's better playmaking ability cannot be determined by stats. If I told you that both TE's had one catch for 5 yards and a TD, would you be able to determine that Carlson's TD was a flat route where he was wide open compared to Rudolph's one handed TD grab in the back of the endzone with a safety draped all over him from the numbers alone? No.

Carlson showed promise his first two years, but right now those can't be classified as anything more than aberrational. He's injury prone and overrated at this point. He can be serviceable if he stays on the field, but there's nothing about his game to suggest he's a better ball player than Rudolph. You say all these things about Rudolph having numbers like he did that are a part of having the best RB in the game on your team, but the same damn stipulations apply to Carlson. Carlson just isn't getting it done. Rudolph is.

Opinion or not...I can't see how anyone would say that right now Carlson is even close to Rudolph. And why all the reliance on stats? Haven't you heard the old adage: "Stats don't lie, but they don't tell the whole story." And the whole story thus far, you are neglecting. You said after their first two seasons that Carlson's TD's were at 13. That's actually false. Not that I care to nitpick about the Carlson only having 12 TD's after two seasons, but the fact that the 13 number you posted was actually his CAREER total. he's been in the NFL for 5 years. Four if we are fair and throw out his injured year. Suddenly, those numbers aren't so favorable.

And yes, I like Rudolph, but I just never understand how Carlson can be living still off so much hype that shouldn't be present right now after 3 years of doing diddly squat. Maybe he regains some of his rookie form, if we want to call it that, but point blank...Looking at stats or not...Rudolph is the main man between the two.

[PacificNorseWest]

Anyway...I enjoyed the article and agree with most of it. Just not about Carlson. Obviously.

[Uptown Murf]

What league isn't a production league? Again, you're straying away from my point. Kyle Rudolph's better playmaking ability cannot be determined by stats. If I told you that both TE's had one catch for 5 yards and a TD, would you be able to determine that Carlson's TD was a flat route where he was wide open compared to Rudolph's one handed TD grab in the back of the endzone with a safety draped all over him from the numbers alone? No.

Carlson showed promise his first two years, but right now those can't be classified as anything more than aberrational. He's injury prone and overrated at this point. He can be serviceable if he stays on the field, but there's nothing about his game to suggest he's a better ball player than Rudolph. You say all these things about Rudolph having numbers like he did that are a part of having the best RB in the game on your team, but the same damn stipulations apply to Carlson. Carlson just isn't getting it done. Rudolph is.

Opinion or not...I can't see how anyone would say that right now Carlson is even close to Rudolph. And why all the reliance on stats? Haven't you heard the old adage: "Stats don't lie, but they don't tell the whole story." And the whole story thus far, you are neglecting. You said after their first two seasons that Carlson's TD's were at 13. That's actually false. Not that I care to nitpick about the Carlson only having 12 TD's after two seasons, but the fact that the 13 number you posted was actually his CAREER total. he's been in the NFL for 5 years. Four if we are fair and throw out his injured year. Suddenly, those numbers aren't so favorable.

And yes, I like Rudolph, but I just never understand how Carlson can be living still off so much hype that shouldn't be present right now after 3 years of doing diddly squat. Maybe he regains some of his rookie form, if we want to call it that, but point blank...Looking at stats or not...Rudolph is the main man between the two.

I'm pretty sure I've resided to the fact that Rudolph is currently the better player due to injuries. As I've stated so. But regardless, at Notre Dame and in his first two seasons. Carlson is better. You said he was more athletic, the pro day stats weren't in Rudolph's favor not one bit. Carlson was much faster with better agility numbers. You said he was more of a playmaker - well the both of them having 12 TD's after two seasons doesn't say that he is...And no Rudolph is better at this point b/c production rules all imo...

If you think you get more chicks than me - but we were to compare numbers and you had 2 chicks and I had 25 - you could think it all you want. The numbers are in my favor. It wouldn't tell the whole story, but the proof would be in the pudding so to speak..But currently, yeah Rudolph is a better player due to Carlson's inactivity. But all we have as a comparison are the first two seasons of both of their careers, b/c that's a fair way to size it up. Technically, Rudolph hasn't done anything in his 3rd season, so we can't say anything past that.....

As for your play-making example. That's cool - but if you told me a person was productive in the NFL - I'm going with the productivity. That play-making thing is subjective. If you told me Rudolph scored a TD with a safety on him - I'd say cool. He's 7'9 345 lbs he should. If you told me Carlson ran a 54 yd TD in after running a 5 route and breaking a tackle, I personally would be more impressed with Carlson. But that doesn't mean Carlson is a better play-maker. It's just an opinion..

[PacificNorseWest]

I don't get what the chicks argument is trying to accomplish. Very susceptible to a serious quality vs. quantity discussion.

You mentioned before that it's a production league...Well, yeah. But more importantly it's a 'what have you done for me lately?' league. Obviously, the jury is still out in regards to Rudolph so that's a wait and see, but what is there to suggest he completely falls off like Carlson? I don't think he does. I mean...I'm pretty damn sure, but just short of a guarantee, that he will have more than 1 TD in the next three seasons.

And in response to the last paragraph...I think you unfairly cut the argument short. Simply given the choice of playmaking ability vs. productivity is narrow sighted and doesn't grasp the full picture. Rudolph improved significantly over his first two seasons. 9 TD's is no small feat. One could say that's pretty productive, no? So when confronted with the juxtaposition of Carlson vs. Rudolph again, you would see RECENT productivity from Rudolph, a massive redzone threat, and durability. You'd be kind to say Carlson is any of those things. And I think disregarding a play Kyle makes because of his size is silly. According to a lot of people, Carlson SHOULD be doing much more, but he's not. So Kyle making plays that should come easier to him because he's bigger, isn't anything to scoff at.

I never do this, but at this point we might as well agree to disagree. This isn't anything personal by the way. I just really enjoy debating these things and it's fun and insightful. I think everyone wins and learns. If Rudolph can steady his play from last year with what Carlson has the ability to bring to the table, then Minnesota should definitely have a very diverse and dynamic TE combo that could be fun to watch.

[Demi]

But currently, yeah Rudolph is a better player due to Carlson's inactivity.

No, no. I think he's a better player because...he's a better player.

Someone is really trying to argue Carlson is in anyway a better player than Rudolph?

Carlson's agent! What are you doing here, you silly goose you!

[Uptown Murf]

I don't get what the chicks argument is trying to accomplish. Very susceptible to a serious quality vs. quantity discussion.

You mentioned before that it's a production league...Well, yeah. But more importantly it's a 'what have you done for me lately?' league. Obviously, the jury is still out in regards to Rudolph so that's a wait and see, but what is there to suggest he completely falls off like Carlson? I don't think he does. I mean...I'm pretty damn sure, but just short of a guarantee, that he will have more than 1 TD in the next three seasons.

And in response to the last paragraph...I think you unfairly cut the argument short. Simply given the choice of playmaking ability vs. productivity is narrow sighted and doesn't grasp the full picture. Rudolph improved significantly over his first two seasons. 9 TD's is no small feat. One could say that's pretty productive, no? So when confronted with the juxtaposition of Carlson vs. Rudolph again, you would see RECENT productivity from Rudolph, a massive redzone threat, and durability. You'd be kind to say Carlson is any of those things. And I think disregarding a play Kyle makes because of his size is silly. According to a lot of people, Carlson SHOULD be doing much more, but he's not. So Kyle making plays that should come easier to him because he's bigger, isn't anything to scoff at.

I never do this, but at this point we might as well agree to disagree. This isn't anything personal by the way. I just really enjoy debating these things and it's fun and insightful. I think everyone wins and learns. If Rudolph can steady his play from last year with what Carlson has the ability to bring to the table, then Minnesota should definitely have a very diverse and dynamic TE combo that could be fun to watch.

I don't mind the banter b/c when you write, you realize it's all an opinion...

9 TD's is great - but people like Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski could get that sleep walking..Then your argument would be about the QB and so on and so forth.

When I look at similar things in football, I take in account the scheme first and foremost. So a TE on a Vertical passing team might have better production just b/c the team takes more shots down the field. (i.e. Tony Gonzalez and Gates) This doesn't apply for Carlson and Rudolph as they were teammates and then played in similar systems in the first two seasons of their respective careers...At Notre Dame Carlson was a the better player. He was more productive and Rudolph was his backup. Rudolph never had a better season than Carlson even when he left - despite playing in a better system his entire career their. Charlie Weis was the coach for all of Rudolph's seasons - and Clausen was a better QB than Quinn statistically.

They both were 2nd round picks with Carlson going higher in his draft - so scouts would agree with this around draft time.

The pro day measurables are in favor of Carlson as he's significantly faster, quicker and more agile. Rudolph is bigger and I believe a better blocker.

The statistics in their first two seasons are in favor of Carlson in every category. Avg per reception, Yards and total amount of catches...total TD's is a wash as you've stated.

So my point with that being said is that let's not forget that Carlson at one point in time was better a better prospect than Rudolph. Injuries have possibly sapped him of that. The recent production is in favor of Rudolph as Carlson was hurt. But all we can do is project Rudolph out as he only has 2 years of service. Chances are going fwd he will be better than Carlson....But I'm sorry - I have watched the two extensively and have plenty of games college and pro readily at my disposal to support my argument. Carlson, IF ALL THINGS WERE EQUAL, meaning before injuries...Is a better prospect and player than Rudolph and the numbers can even support that. This whole thing came about only b/c you said he was a better athlete - which i don't think is debatable due to them having measurables in the tangible form of combines and pro day's.

Me saying that Carlson is better can be debated as you are doing, but the athlete thing - sorry bro. They do all the same exact tests. And these two happen to have done it on the same exact surface with the same exact staff at the same exact school....

REMEMBER THIS IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT ABOUT COLLEGE AND UP UNTIL THE FIRST 2 SEASONS OF THEIR CAREER. Rudolph will be better going fwd I'd imagine. But who knows - maybe Carlson will shake off the injury bug?!? Stranger things have happened.

As for the chick argument - that too would be subjective. You might think your 2 chicks look better than my 25 - and I might think they look as good as a couple of my chicks yet the other 23 aren't up for debate b/c they don't exist for you...You feel me? Some things are subjective....But great points by you my man..

As for the significant improvement, one would say why the slow start with 26 catches? Carlson came out the gate with 55 catches and 5 td's. He followed it up with 51 with 7 td's. So he didn't have 9 but he helped his team out both seasons.

Another thing is - Carlson was targeted 80 x's and caught 55 passes and 83 and 51 the next. Rudolph was targeted 93 x's and caught 53.....hmmmm - so we can definitely say your play-making claim is subjective as his catch % is lower than Carlson both season...It's a lot of diff ways we can go ya know?? But like I said, it's a great argument b/c both players play for your team...I love an argument as to who's better b/w Julio Jones and Roddy White - b/c they both play for my team, and they both are in the discussion for being the best..

[Uptown Murf]

No, no. I think he's a better player because...he's a better player.

Someone is really trying to argue Carlson is in anyway a better player than Rudolph?

Carlson's agent! What are you doing here, you silly goose you!

uhh am I really supposed to respond? It's too vague. Give me some examples to support your argument...And read the whole discussion - I'm not saying he's a better player now obviously. But through college and the first 2 seasons of their pro careers - Carlson has that rather easily imo...Going fwd Rudolph has a chance to separate. But give me your argument and don't let it be a weak "Is that you Carlson's agent?" joke...

[PacificNorseWest]

9 TD's is great - but people like Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski could get that sleep walking..Then your argument would be about the QB and so on and so forth.

No. I would not. This discussion is between two guys - Carlson and Rudolph. The other two are in another tier all-together. The 9 TD's were in response to you saying that your stance would be taking the production over the playmaking. I'm saying Rudolph WAS productive.

At Notre Dame Carlson was a the better player. He was more productive and Rudolph was his backup.

At Notre Dame. Not the NFL. It happens time and time again. Look no further than Peter Warrick and Anquan Boldin.

They both were 2nd round picks with Carlson going higher in his draft - so scouts would agree with this around draft time.

Scouts have been wrong before. Also...How can you possibly use this as an argument? You are merging two draft classes and saying because Carlson was drafted higher in his class makes him the better prospect. That's ridiculous, man. Carlson was a projected as anywhere from the 3rd to 5th TE taken in that draft. Rudolph was number one in his year, so I can easily use that as my counter, but you can't just merge draft classes like that.

The statistics in their first two seasons are in favor of Carlson in every category. Avg per reception, Yards and total amount of catches...total TD's is a wash as you've stated.

It's imperative to distinguish the two beyond just stats. While Rudolph lost touches to Percy and AP, Carlson lost touches to....who? Hasselbeck was obviously the better quarterback of him and Ponder at the time and easily more polished. Hasselbeck has always been a guy to heavily rely on his TE as an outlet (so many leakouts or play fakes that end up to the TE) or primary read (but tertiary look). By that I mean, Matthew always tried to go the TE's way. He knew damn well that's where he was going, so he would look off his target but ultimately deliver to the wide open TE. So, it's all relative.

So my point with that being said is that let's not forget that Carlson at one point in time was better a better prospect than Rudolph.

Subjective. It goes back to merging draft classes. Both were highly regarded TE's. Carlson started over Rudolph. He was also older and got there earlier. ND has a strong recent history of TE's that all take the place of a productive predecessor.

The recent production is in favor of Rudolph as Carlson was hurt.

How long can that be used as a crutch? No pun intended. Rudolph being handed the label of being better wasn't simply a result of Carlson not being able to stay on the field all 16 games. Rudolph is just better.

Carlson, IF ALL THINGS WERE EQUAL, meaning before injuries...Is a better prospect and player than Rudolph and the numbers can even support that.

If all things were equal then Carlson still would've been a backup his final year in Seattle as he was slated to be and if he somehow still ended up in Minnesota he'd be a backup there so I don't much care what scouts thought they knew, because Rudolph is better, point blank. Potential is a dirty word. Carlson is going on 5 years now and you still want to tab him as a prospective talent.

I just don't see why you're sifting through the past and nitpicking things that don't show the full picture. It may work with others, but not me. I know you're better than that.

Athlete is the biggest the debatable at this point, it appears.

[Texas Vike]

At this point if you guys could just post pictures of the ladies you've landed we could get back to the heart of the matter and the quality vs. quantity debate... that'd be much appreciated.

All kidding aside, I think we can all agree that if Carlson can resemble his old self, even a little, we could be in for a great year. I'm not holding my breath on Carlson though.

[Uptown Murf]

No. I would not. This discussion is between two guys - Carlson and Rudolph. The other two are in another tier all-together. The 9 TD's were in response to you saying that your stance would be taking the production over the playmaking. I'm saying Rudolph WAS productive.
At Notre Dame. Not the NFL. It happens time and time again. Look no further than Peter Warrick and Anquan Boldin.
Scouts have been wrong before. Also...How can you possibly use this as an argument? You are merging two draft classes and saying because Carlson was drafted higher in his class makes him the better prospect. That's ridiculous, man. Carlson was a projected as anywhere from the 3rd to 5th TE taken in that draft. Rudolph was number one in his year, so I can easily use that as my counter, but you can't just merge draft classes like that.
It's imperative to distinguish the two beyond just stats. While Rudolph lost touches to Percy and AP, Carlson lost touches to....who? Hasselbeck was obviously the better quarterback of him and Ponder at the time and easily more polished. Hasselbeck has always been a guy to heavily rely on his TE as an outlet (so many leakouts or play fakes that end up to the TE) or primary read (but tertiary look). By that I mean, Matthew always tried to go the TE's way. He knew damn well that's where he was going, so he would look off his target but ultimately deliver to the wide open TE. So, it's all relative.
Subjective. It goes back to merging draft classes. Both were highly regarded TE's. Carlson started over Rudolph. He was also older and got there earlier. ND has a strong recent history of TE's that all take the place of a productive predecessor.
How long can that be used as a crutch? No pun intended. Rudolph being handed the label of being better wasn't simply a result of Carlson not being able to stay on the field all 16 games. Rudolph is just better.
If all things were equal then Carlson still would've been a backup his final year in Seattle as he was slated to be and if he somehow still ended up in Minnesota he'd be a backup there so I don't much care what scouts thought they knew, because Rudolph is better, point blank. Potential is a dirty word. Carlson is going on 5 years now and you still want to tab him as a prospective talent.

I just don't see why you're sifting through the past and nitpicking things that don't show the full picture. It may work with others, but not me. I know you're better than that.

Athlete is the biggest the debatable at this point, it appears.

Scouts were wrong? Yet to this point- Rudolph hasn't had a better season than Carlson's best season depsite being targeted more. How can I post that Rudolph was targeted more but you claim he lost touches to guy who didn't even exist for half the season aka Percy Harvin..Listen bro, when Rudolph does something better than Carlson let me know. Other than that you are just going back n forth with NOTHING but two more TD's in a year to your credit...TJ Housh, Nate Burleson and Deion Branch all had plenty of catches and yet Carlson still produced more and hade a higher catch % than Rudolph despite being targeted less...So the scouts were dead on. Carlson was; QUICKER, FASTER, MORE AGILE, MORE CATCHES, MORE YARDS PER CATCH, SAME AMOUNT OF TD's <---And all of this is not subjective - this is all TRUE and can be proven with data to support it.

Your claim; Rudolph is a better play-maker and a better athlete and was the better prospect...All 3 things can't be proven outside of you just saying it. And the data would say none of these things are true. And I study prospects, and have to write draft profiles on it, so my eye test as well as scouts say otherwise...And if being older as a tight end has something to do with it as far as being a starter in college - why was Tyler Eiffert (The Bengals 1st rd pick) the starter over Rudolph his Junior season when Eiffert was freshman? Dude you are kinda over-doing the Rudolph thing - and just guessing. He wasn't even productive in college.

2008 - 29 rec 340 yds with 2 TD's
2009 - 33 rec 364 yds with 3 TD's
2010 - 28 rec 328 yds with 3 TD's

There wasn't one time in 3 yrs of watching pretty much every game he played with my boy Clausen where I thought he was some dynamic presence.And don't say it was a different coaching staff b/c it wasn't. And I believe Rudolph had the better college QB in Jimmy Clausen over Brady Quinn for Carlson...So this outstanding prospect of yours never had more than 33 receptions or more than 364 yards, and was apart of the WORST TIGHT END DRAFT OF THE DECADE.

And I looked through my tapes and watched some old ND games with Rudolph - and he wasn't actually Carlson's backup - I think he redshirted Carlson's senior season - but both played for Charlie Weis and Rudolph got to play for Brian Kelly his last season- so I apologize for the backup statement. It was Anthony Fasano former Cowboy/Dolphin now a KC Chief and John Carlson together.

Carlson's first two seasons at ND he didn't play. He had 6 and 7 catches his first two season with Ty Willingham. But when Weis came in he blew up.
06 - 47 rec 634 yds 4 TD's
07 - 40 rec 373 yds 3 TD's ....So yeah the scouts had a reason to think Carlson was better as he was a higher rated prospect which has nothing to do with what draft you're in...So based on college the scouts weren't dumb. A faster, quicker, more agile guy with better production at the same school will be the better prospect..Sorry bro
___________________

Eifert who is better than all these guys had:
'10 - 27 rec 352 yds 2 TD's <---While playing with Rudolph - so there goes your seniority TE argument
'11 - 63 rec 803 yds 5 TD's
'12 - 50 rec 685 yds 4 TD's

And your Rudolph was the #1 TE is laughable considering Carlson was still drafted higher. So that would signify a lack of good TE's in Rudolph's draft. And only Dustin Keller was drafted ahead of Carlson and he was as productive as Carlson and Rudolph combined. On teams that went to the AFC champ game two years in a row.

In Rudolph's year he competed with Lance Kendricks and Rob Housler - two guys who aren't that earth shattering.

In Carlson's year he competed with Dustin Keller, Fred Davis, Martellus Bennett and Jermichael Finley. All of these guys can flat out play. Yet Carlson was still a top 40 pick and the 2nd TE off the board.
_______________

As for the Peter Warrick/Anquan Boldin thing..lololol wtf? Peter Warrick was a 5th year senior in 99 when Quan came on campus as a Quarterback. There wasn't an issue as to whether A High School QB should unseat the best receiver in the nation...

And here's where your subjective thing goes out the window. I played ball - and I understand the west coast offense and it's concepts and progressions. Please tell me how Matt Hasselbeck looks for the TE first? You read outside in, in that offense. His first keys goes from z to x than y if necessary. Usually they had a slot receiver in Seattle that was his third key as well. Same thing in Minnesota, Ponder has to read his key's bro. They are playing in a timing based offense that requires this. So no - Hasselbeck is not a TE dependent QB. His best TE target was a weirdo named Jerramy Stevens, who wasn't anything special at all. Carlson was his first true threat as a TE.

In 2005 the SB year - the TE Stevans had 45 rec for 554 yds and 5 TE. Not earth shattering bro. Looks just like Carlson's stat line actually

In 2006 his top three targets were Darrel Jackson 63 rec, Deion Branch 53 rec, and DJ Hackett, 45 rec..The Tight End Stevans had 22 catches...11-5 season
_________

But please tell me why we are going back n forth again? I already said Rudolph is better currently. Just not any time in college or his first 2 seasons....So?!?!?

[PacificNorseWest]

Ya know...I had this whole meticulous response ready to go, but I'm gonna decide to not pull the trigger because this is getting annoying. I'm sure everyone else would agree.

Just one thing....The puffing the chest out of saying you played ball...C'mon dude. I'm not new to the ins and outs of the game, if you know what I mean.

Enjoyed the article. Keep posting them if you can. I'd love to do this again.

[Reignman]

Ahhh yes, 'twas a good read ... fluid, smooth, and about the Vikings haha. Nice work Murf.

On the surface Ponder and Ryan had similar sophomore seasons, but I think everyone over looked the fact that Ryan missed 2 games in '09 and only had 3 pass attempts in a 3rd game. In other words Ryan put up the same numbers as Ponder but in 3 fewer games. Also if you look at Ryan's game by game stats, he was a hell of a lot more consistent. Plus there are no sub 100's on Ryan's 78 game resume (minus injury shortened games).

Then you throw in the AD factor, all those stacked boxes and single coverage should have been a QB's wet dream, but Ponder struggled to take advantage. I get that our offense isn't designed to go vertical all that often, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it doesn't have a lot to do with who's throwing the ball.

Whether your offense is designed to go deep or not, an NFL caliber QB should't be as abysmal at going down field as Ponder was in 2012 (see chart below).

Okay, let me specify by stating I'd like to see proof with down the field passing, qb to wideout, further then 30 or so yards. Remember, I am as big a Vikings fan as anyone here, and have been since the 70s childhood. I, however, want to see Ponder look and hook up deep into the secondary, and not the majority of his completions between the linebackers.

...wisdom through a new WR!

I got you covered. Although this is more like all pass attempts 15+ yards down field.

2012 deep passing statistics (minimum 40 attempts).


However Matt Ryan was equally bad at going deep in '09 as Ponder was in '12, so all hope is not lost for the Ponder camp I guess. Or perhaps it's just not wise to have Michael Jenkins on your roster if you want to be a successful deep team haha. And yeah I know, ironically both Ryan and Ponder hit Jenkins deep on their first NFL passes (well Ponder's first home pass).

Matt Ryan's '09 deep passing statistics:
82 att, 27 comp, (32.9%), 673 yards, (8.21 avg), 4 TD, 8 INT, 40.4 rating

There were no significant changes to the Falcons receiver squad from 2009 to 2010. White, Jenkins, and Gonzalez were Ryan's main targets in '09 and '10. Julio Jones didn't come along until Ryans 4th season in 2011. The Vikings on the other hand have made improvements in the receiver department, so it's all on Ponder now.

The Vikings should be scary in 2013, but there's still a huge question mark at the most important position on the team. However if we're destined to mirror the Falcons, I just hope we end up with better playoff fortune than they have in recent years lol.

[Vike Fan 4 Life]

^ that's some great research! Interesting stuff, hopefully Ponder is able to make the strides in the deep passing game that Ryan was able to.

[dead_poet]

There were no significant changes to the Falcons receiver squad from 2009 to 2010. White, Jenkins, and Gonzalez were Ryan's main targets in '09 and '10. Julio Jones didn't come along until Ryans 4th season in 2011. The Vikings on the other hand have made improvements in the receiver department, so it's all on Ponder now.

I'll disagree with this point. The jury is certainly out on whether or not the Vikings have improved in the receiver department. I'll give Jennings probably a bit more credit than he might deserve and call Percy for Jennings a neutral exchange. We've all discussed that Jennings is great at things Harvin is not (and vice-versa). So instead of getting into that debate here, we'll call that a scratch. The real "X" factor is Patterson, and while he certainly has potential, there are aspects of his game that are severely lacking (route-running being one of the major points). There's certainly potential that his inexperience could be a liability, and rookie receivers --as a general rule -- hardly put up impressive statistics.

Since 1991, NFL teams have used 83 first-round draft picks on receivers. Only 21 of them (25.3%) caught at least 50 passes as rookies. Another 27 of those receivers (32.5%) finished their rookie seasons with even 32 catches -- two a game, which isn't exactly impactful.

The numbers are even lower in the second round, where 88 receivers have been taken since '91. Only 10 of those receivers (11.4%) caught at least 50 passes as rookies and 21 more (23.9%) caught at least 32.

In other words, more than half the receivers selected in the first two rounds of the past 22 drafts (92 of 171, 53.8%) finished with 31 catches or fewer in Year 1 -- providing little to no immediate impact.

http://m.1500espn.com/pages/sportswire.php?sID=7259

So if we look at it from that perspective, as crazy as it sounds, one could say that he may not be an immediate upgrade in terms of receiving prowess than Michael Jenkins. Going off the data, he'd be about right in the "normal" range for a majority of first-round receivers if he matches Jenkins' 40 catches from a year ago. Of course, his presence may be a bit more impactful even if he's not thrown at if he's able to command more attention and loosen up the defense.

Jerome Simpson is a bit of an enigma. The Vikings signed him to a contract that certainly leads them to believe his 2012 woes was primarily a result of mystery back pain. Still, I don't know if he's ever going to be more than a depth receiver. Wright flashed when he was on the field, so another season under his belt should be beneficial for him and I expect him to be a bit better, though I question whether or not he's going to see the field any more than in four-wide sets or situational roles so I question his overall impact on Ponder and the receiving corps.

The Vikings should be scary in 2013, but there's still a huge question mark at the most important position on the team.

I agree that Ponder is still a huge question mark, but I also am not convinced our receivers in 2013 will be a dramatic improvement over a year ago. In fact, cumulatively, they may actually be worse. I also think that downfield run blocking will be a bit worse as Harvin and Jenkins were pretty beastly at that.

There's also the question of how Phil Loadholt will perform after receiving a new contract and the uncertainty at guard (which was downright ugly at times last season and can't be blamed on Ponder).

I guess my point is that, for me, there are questions at WR and guard (in particular) that factor into quarterback play so I don't know if I can say that 2013 is "all on Ponder." I think that's a bit unfair when there are only so many things in the passing game that he can control. He needs to improve, no question. I'm hoping the other pieces do too.