Grantland Article

[TheCoolerOne]

Kinda interesting article on the Vikings.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/955 ... mbers-test

[Texas Vike]

Excellent read.

Many strong points in his analysis; among them this gem

One more stat for Ponder and then I'll move on. Third-and-long in reasonably close (two-score) situations is a good stat to see what a quarterback does when he has to throw. It's not by any means foolproof, but it gives you a good idea of what a quarterback did when he had no threat of a running play around him. Working with third-and-7 or more as the definition, Ponder faced 75 such downs last year and converted 24 of them for first downs, a 32 percent rate that was seventh-best in the league.2 Better than you thought, right?

[admvp]

Barnwell is a good writer. He pretty much always uses facts to back up his claims.

But I don't know if I agree that we'll be pushed all the way down to (or below) .500.

That tough division, some changing luck, and the inevitable decline in Adrian Peterson's historic performance will likely be enough to push them to — or perhaps below — the .500 mark in 2013.

I agree that we have a certain amount of statistical regression headed our way, but you know how you combat regression? By improving. And that's what I'm expecting.

[Hunter Morrow]

2000 yards a season is likely not sustainable. However, it isn't impossible and furthermore, a 15 or 16 game Peterson campaign
would likely be a 1450 yard rushing/200 yard receiving campaign. Even a Peterson regression has him amongst the best RBs in the league.

I think the Vikings are improved in almost every position so a 500 yard all purpose regression still puts him at 1800 all purpose yards
and that's fine by me.

Other good quote...

Minnesota's star wideout missed the final seven games of the season and the playoff loss to Green Bay. Without Harvin, the Vikings were downright destitute at wide receiver. Minnesota's starting wideouts over that stretch were Jerome Simpson and Michael Jenkins. I'm not saying that Ponder doesn't have strides to make in his game, but am I meant to take Christian Ponder's performance seriously with those guys? Come on. Minnesota traded Harvin away this offseason and used the deal to sign Greg Jennings in free agency and draft Cordarrelle Patterson in the first round; I don't know if those guys will be great in 2013, but I suspect they will be healthier than Harvin and a damn sight better than the combination of Simpson and Jenkins, which coincidentally sounds like a law firm that might have been equally ineffective as NFL wide receivers.

Edit: I also had no idea that Ponder's first 8 games were as good as they were. He was on pace for a 65 percent completion rate, 3500 yard, 20 touchdown campaign. If Ponder goes back to what he was in those first 8 games and stays there, a Peterson Regression might just be academic if there is a Ponder Progression?

P.onder I. S.ecretly S.pecial?

[Mothman]

I agree that we have a certain amount of statistical regression headed our way, but you know how you combat regression? By improving. And that's what I'm expecting.

Well said.

That was a good read and Barnwell's article isn't the first place where I've seen someone predict the Vikes will regress in 2013 because Peterson won't be able to run for 2000 yards, Winfield is gone and they'll lose a higher percentage of close games. As you point, out if they improve, they can combat that kind of regression. If they improve enough, maybe they'll be in fewer close games in the first place!

They play in a tough division but they're as capable of making it tough for their division rivals as those rivals are of making life difficult for the Vikes. It's going to be an interesting season.

It was nice to read a more optimistic take on Ponder for once and I loved a line in the paragraph Hunter quoted above:

I'm not saying that Ponder doesn't have strides to make in his game, but am I meant to take Christian Ponder's performance seriously with those guys?

It's a good point.

[PacificNorseWest]

His first three games always felt like fools gold to me. You could tell he still had a big learning curve there and I never felt comfortable putting full faith in Ponder after Week 3. Almost felt lucky or rhythmic. His second half play felt to me to be more of a product of experience and overall development. I don't have anything to substaniate this, but it was feeling I got watching him.

[mansquatch]

I need to digress this a bit and focus on the defense. I get hte Ponder stuff, we've said all offseason that he needs to take a stride for the VIkings to get better and win playoff games, no argument here.

The defense is where I think things are interesting and a bit more murky. Winfild is out, big hit there in some areas. However, keep in mind Winfiled wasn't playing full time and was 35 years young. I think there is an opportunity for our young secondary to actually be better in 2013 than it was in 2012. We'll see.

At this point I think LB looks like it might be better than it was in 2012. Greenway is Greenway and I think EH will be better than Brinkley. The question is who is at the Will? I also think that while we might be better at this position, I do not think we'll be markedly better.

DL: What is not to like? We have the deepest DL in the NFL right now.

Overall, while I think regression is possible, I also think this unit is on the cusp of becoming elite. This side of the football has plenty of potential to be even better in 2013 than in 2012. That is exciting.

[Mothman]

The defense is where I think things are interesting and a bit more murky. Winfild is out, big hit there in some areas. However, keep in mind Winfiled wasn't playing full time and was 35 years young. I think there is an opportunity for our young secondary to actually be better in 2013 than it was in 2012. We'll see.

I think overall improvement is possible too but I do expect growing pains (and I mean pains) with such a young group. Hopefully, they can keep big mistakes that result in big plays for the opposition to a minimum. I expect teams to really test Robinson in the slot and Rhodes on the outside.

Overall, while I think regression is possible, I also think this unit is on the cusp of becoming elite. This side of the football has plenty of potential to be even better in 2013 than in 2012. That is exciting.

It IS exciting and I feel the same way about the offense. The potential for improvement is definitely there, whether AD can match last year's 2000 yard performance or not. A lot of pundits are assuming the Vikes overachieved last year and perhaps they did but hopefully what we really saw was a young team coming together quickly and preparing to take the next big step .

[mondry]

Read this the other day, it wasn't a bad article by any means. He makes solid points both for and against but I also feel like he ignores a bit of the positive stuff he himself writes about! The problem I have with the "Peterson will regress" idea is that I don't think it's true. I think the only thing limiting peterson will be touches and the only way he gets less touches is if the passing game is so overwhelmingly effective like it was in 2009, thus we used Peterson less. My point is, theirs a direct correlation between Peterson "regressing" and the passing game improving. If Jennings, Patterson, Rudolph, etc are more effective than what we had last year AND a better option to Peterson then certainly they will get some of those 2100 yards to come their way but those 2100 yards simply won't evaporate, just redistributed.

While he also has data about Ponder's first and second halfs of the season I really think it'd be more useful to look at it in thirds. The first third was solid, teams hadn't adapted to the short game musgrave was imploring and Harvin was harvin at that point. The 2nd third teams did adapt to Harvin and Musgrave's play calling, the offensive line struggled to stop the exotic blitzes, and ponder struggled with adversity. Then there was the final third of the season where Harvin went out and we no longer worried about force feeding him the ball, the play calling adapted and we were able to pick up enough blitzes and / or beat them that we got teams to stop doing it. Everything looks good again and this allows us into the playoffs and Adrian to go for the record.

In other words, we came out with a generic plan to get Harvin the ball, teams adapted to it and caused us problems, but we figured it out and adapted ourselves to get back on track, it's as simple as that, problem solved. Don't let 8 good weeks of offense be over shadowed by a bad 4 week stretch we fixed LAST YEAR.

Now we have a legit #1 WR in Jennings and even if he gets hurt so did Harvin so worst case scenario it's the same as last year but better since Wright will have another year and improve, Simpson isn't hobbled yet, and we got MR. Patterson. Not to mention little ol stephen burton looks ready for a bigger role as well. In order for the WR corp to be worse than last year we'd need guys 1-3 on the depth chart to get hurt along with Carlson.

[Mothman]

While he also has data about Ponder's first and second halfs of the season I really think it'd be more useful to look at it in thirds. The first third was solid, teams hadn't adapted to the short game musgrave was imploring and Harvin was harvin at that point. The 2nd third teams did adapt to Harvin and Musgrave's play calling, the offensive line struggled to stop the exotic blitzes, and ponder struggled with adversity. Then there was the final third of the season where Harvin went out and we no longer worried about force feeding him the ball, the play calling adapted and we were able to pick up enough blitzes and / or beat them that we got teams to stop doing it. Everything looks good again and this allows us into the playoffs and Adrian to go for the record.

In other words, we came out with a generic plan to get Harvin the ball, teams adapted to it and caused us problems, but we figured it out and adapted ourselves to get back on track, it's as simple as that, problem solved. Don't let 8 good weeks of offense be over shadowed by a bad 4 week stretch we fixed LAST YEAR.

Excellent points and I agree that it makes more sense to break Ponder's season down into thirds (if it's going to be broken down at all). I think it's also worth mentioning that the early emphasis on Harvin was probably due in part to Peterson being on a "carry count" as he worked his way back to full health. However, I wouldn't necessarily characterize the way they used Harvin as "generic". I actually thought they were pretty resourceful in finding ways to get ball in his hands and make the most of his ability and it helped him gain a lot of yardage in just half a season (not that he didn't get some of it on his own). Eventually, teams caught up to some of what they were doing but then, as you said, the Vikes adapted.

Musgrave has his strengths and weaknesses as an OC but it's clear that he knows how to devise game plans that will get the ball to his playmakers and enable them to excel. He did it with Harvin. He did it with Peterson and I think that bodes well for Patterson. I'm pretty confident Musgrave will find ways to put the rookie in position to make an impact.

Jim

[mondry]

What? With Allen healthy and Robison coming into his own, the DL has never been this good or deep in a long time. How can he not mention Griffen or Floyd?



I do agree with him that the Vikings could end up at or below .500, but not because of the law of averages or because of what Walsh did 3 years ago in college. It's because of their schedule, which this writer almost fails to mention.

Yeah now I remember that was one of the things that bugged me too. It's one thing to call them old with no one waiting in the wings but 2 of our 3 "old guys" on the line have replacements already groomed.

[The Breeze]

I think it's 50\50 that they'll regress or improve on their record. So many variables are involved on a game by game basis and so many bounces that can go for or against a team cannot be predicted.

I feel these guys will challenge for the division all season. I think Chicago is more likely to regress because of all the changes there.....it might take them half a season just to gel. No one should sleep on the Lions IMO. And until the Packers can solve their own issue of being a mostly one dimentional team....I would consider them as a candidate for further regression, at least within the division.

I think the biggest question for the Vikes is the secondary. I feel the potential for a huge season along the D-line can help immensely with stabilizing a young secondary. If Harrison Smith can continue to lead by example and they continue to improve on creating turnovers, this team has everything it needs to be a ball control, grind you down kind of force that will always be in games to the end.

If the other team is able to dictate what our offense needs to do, it will be real interesting to see what Musgrave draws up. I think his evolution as an OC is every bit as important as Ponder's or anybody else. He should be familiar enough within the division by now to have some good ideas.


But I really believe the teams season will hinge on how the defense handles the division games....aside from injuies and other unforeseen circumstances.