Vikings Message Board.Com

...and skip the backup and go straight to MBT. Cassel will never be a good QB, we know that, so if we're going to give up on Ponder why not at least take a chance on MBT? It seems pointless to coast to a 5-11 finish with a veteran quarterback who we know is nothing more than a career backup. Sure, chances are he won't be any good, but at least we'll be able to see if he has some potential.

I realize that coaches are probably not going to want to stake their jobs on MBT's success, so this is more hypothetical than anything.

maembe wrote:...and skip the backup and go straight to MBT. Cassel will never be a good QB, we know that, so if we're going to give up on Ponder why not at least take a chance on MBT? It seems pointless to coast to a 5-11 finish with a veteran quarterback who we know is nothing more than a career backup. Sure, chances are he won't be any good, but at least we'll be able to see if he has some potential.

I realize that coaches are probably not going to want to stake their jobs on MBT's success, so this is more hypothetical than anything.

I'll admit, I've been thinking along the same lines. I'm undecided but hey, it's not my decision anyway.

I guess it depends on the coach's opinion of Cassell. If they think he has long term starter potential then you play him for the remainder of the year with MBT as a back up. If they view Cassell as nothing more than a career back up and MBT as a potential future starter then MBT should get the remainder of the year to show what he has. If neither of them are believed to be a potential starter in the future then you just have to ride with Ponder no matter how bad he is.

Personally I feel like we know what Cassell is and is not. He should be the back up in case of injury. If Ponder stinks it up for another game or two you make the switch to MBT and park Ponder at the end of the bench. (personally I'd just release him and be done with it but what do I know) If MBT shocks the world and looks servicable he becomes the second string back up behind whoever we sign or draft in the offseason.

GBFavreFan wrote:With Frazier's job on the line, there's no way he puts in #3. After the Steelers game, put Cassel in. He has more potential than Ponder at this point. And if he plays 3-4 games and stinks, then they could even put Ponder back in, and that benching might spark Ponder to finally play like we need him to. Putting in MBT is throwing in the towel and that's way too big of a gamble for Frazier. Hoyer isn't a scrub, he did back up Brady and even started before.

This is (unfortunately) probably correct. I also think the best strategy (long term) would be to play MBT to see if he will amount to anything (the kid's got an arm, I'll give him that). Frazier, in the last year of his contract, will probably not be that bold. His strategy will most likely be based on playing the QB who Frazier believes will win (in order to salvage his chance of future employment IMHO.) If he consistently plays conservative in the 4th quarter of games, I don't see him suddenly taking risks in this area.

This is the exact situation that lead us to picking 12th in the 2011 draft vs. higher and getting a better QB prospect. Frasier was the "Interim" headcoach and was basiclly caoching to finally get his first Headcoaching gig. So they beat the eagles and our draft position dropped.

Now Frasier has no contract, and we are 0-3. If they want to play for a draft pick, then they need to address this conflict of interest. I think it is worth emphasizing that to me the most important part of that statement is "if they want to". I suspect many do not, both coaches and players. However, it hard to deny that history is repeating itself.

This is just a hunch, but I think the organization thinks it is a heck of a lot better than it's record. I think they have earned 0-3 and their record indicates just who they are. Can they change that? Well Coaches?

IMO, it is better to do a Colts and eat the 2-14 season to take a shot at "the guy". One season of misery vs. 4 of mediocrity. But there are other valid takes on the subject.

mansquatch wrote:This is the exact situation that lead us to picking 12th in the 2011 draft vs. higher and getting a better QB prospect. Frasier was the "Interim" headcoach and was basiclly caoching to finally get his first Headcoaching gig. So they beat the eagles and our draft position dropped.

Now Frasier has no contract, and we are 0-3. If they want to play for a draft pick, then they need to address this conflict of interest. I think it is worth emphasizing that to me the most important part of that statement is "if they want to". I suspect many do not, both coaches and players. However, it hard to deny that history is repeating itself.

This is just a hunch, but I think the organization thinks it is a heck of a lot better than it's record. I think they have earned 0-3 and their record indicates just who they are. Can they change that? Well Coaches?

IMO, it is better to do a Colts and eat the 2-14 season to take a shot at "the guy". One season of misery vs. 4 of mediocrity. But there are other valid takes on the subject.

I don't think it makes any sense at all because drafting high offers no guarantees. It would be worth tanking a season to get the next Peyton Manning but if you tank it and get the next Couch, Carr or Russell, all you've done is dig a deeper hole, while alienating your players (and many fans) and cultivating a losing mentality. Would it be worth tanking a season to get Sam Bradford or Alex Smith (not 9 veteran Alex Smith, first 3-4 years of his career Alex Smith)? If they don't quite tank their season as effectively as another desperate team or two, maybe they end up with a top 3-5 pick instead of #1 and get themselves a Leaf, Sanchez, Young, Harrington, Akili Smith, Shuler, Mirer or Klingler!

It doesn't take high draft position to go from bad or mediocre to good, it takes good scouting, drafting coaching and player development. P. Manning, Rodgers, Brady and Brees have been the top QBs in the game in recent years and arguably remain so today. Manning was selected with the first pick in the draft but every other team in the league had the opportunity to get the other 3. In Brees' case, they had the opportunity twice because he was actually a free agent. Nobody had to tank a season to get one of those 3 QBs and they are superb players.

Tanking a season might the Vikes a a terrific franchise QB or just another disappointing bust. it's not the right way to go about things. They'd be better off to double their investment in scouting with the best scouts they can find.

Not to mention they're 0-3, not 0-8. Tanking the season shouldn't even be remote consideration at this point.

Jim your argument makes sense, but it rests on the notion of the past repeating itself. I would argue that the modern NFL is pushing towards a QB driven league to such an extent that all the NFL teams realize that a franchise QB is required to be competitive. This is old news, remember that recorded phone call involving the Buffalo GM last year? He flatly stated that the job is easy if you get that guy at that position, without him, it is tough. The point here is that as the league continues with this trend more and more losing teams are going to blow high picks trying to find “that guy” since they all know “that guy” is the key difference maker.

IMO, it behooves a team to get ahead of this curve and have the pick of the litter vs. being several picks down and getting the guys that several other scouting departments didn’t want. I get that sometimes these guys go lower, Wilson and Kaepernick are the recent example, but also what about Luck and RGIII? They are probably the most exciting young guys and they went #1 and #2. There is something to be said about the NFL QB problem, but recent history would indicate that this trend might be changing as several young guys have come in and done quite well.

Maybe there is no Luck type prospect in this draft. If that is the case, then I agree that tanking may not be worth the risk. However if there is…

I want to note, that I’m being purely hypothetical. I do not think our organization thinks they are at the “blow it up” point yet. Way too much talent on the roster. IMO, this again points towards the coaching. You can say the issues are personal mistakes by players, but again, I ask, isn’t it the responsibility of management to get these guys sharp enough to not make these kinds of mistakes? Especially in cases where there isn’t a history of it? For that matter, what about putting the best guy vs. “their guy” on the field. The LB situation with Desmond Bishop stinks of this as does Robinson starting ahead of Rhodes.

The Vikings management will not make this sort of move. If Ponder's supposed injury keeps him out this week, they'll throw Cassell in there and watch him blow #### for a game or two, and magically Ponder's injury will be better and he'll go back in, play just OK enough to not get pulled, and we'll be in the same spot we are now.

I do think they SHOULD just throw MBT in there. Maybe give him some first team reps the next two weeks while Cassell stinks up the joint. Cassell is not the answer, and it was a glaring indication that our talent evaluators are not very good when they signed him.

I will say though that MBT kicks #### in the latest Madden

mansquatch wrote:Jim your argument makes sense, but it rests on the notion of the past repeating itself. I would argue that the modern NFL is pushing towards a QB driven league to such an extent that all the NFL teams realize that a franchise QB is required to be competitive. This is old news, remember that recorded phone call involving the Buffalo GM last year? He flatly stated that the job is easy if you get that guy at that position, without him, it is tough. The point here is that as the league continues with this trend more and more losing teams are going to blow high picks trying to find “that guy” since they all know “that guy” is the key difference maker.

IMO, it behooves a team to get ahead of this curve and have the pick of the litter vs. being several picks down and getting the guys that several other scouting departments didn’t want. I get that sometimes these guys go lower, Wilson and Kaepernick are the recent example, but also what about Luck and RGIII? They are probably the most exciting young guys and they went #1 and #2. There is something to be said about the NFL QB problem, but recent history would indicate that this trend might be changing as several young guys have come in and done quite well.

... and several haven't. I understand what you're saying but I don't think recent history indicates any significant change in this regard. Russell, Young and Leinart were busts. Sanchez looks like a bust. Gabbert looks like a bust. For every Luck or Ryan there's a counterpart that didn't work out or hasn't been what the team hoped. Again, would it really be worth tanking a season to get Alex Smith or Sam Bradford?

I understand that there's an advantage to having the pick of the litter, as you say, but if those pesky professional players actually manage to win a few games and you don't get the first pick in the draft, someone can always trade ahead of you or select ahead of you and get your guy. beyond that, why would a team send the message to their entire roster that they're throwing games, not even trying to win and all for the sake of drafting a player who has never played a down of NFL football? To some fans, that says, "we want to get a franchise QB because that's the the key to success". To players, it says, "none of you matter and this guy will get special treatment because he is THE one, single, all-important piece we need to succeed".

Nearly everything about the idea strikes me as foolhardy and there's way too much evidence out there that being bad isn't the way to become good. The Lions spent the better part of 2 or 3 decades picking near (sometimes at) the top of the draft and how much good did it do them over the majority of that time span? In the 1990s, the Rams went 9 straight seasons without a winning record, only once getting as many as 7 wins, before they picked up Kurt Warner, who would lead them to a Super Bowl win and two SB appearances. Where did they find him? The Arena League.

Those same Rams had their pick of QBs 4 years ago, drafted Sam Bradford and haven't had a winning season since.

The Bengals went 13 years without a winning season, spent the #1 pick on Carson Palmer in 2003 and in seven years with Palmer as their starter, they had 2 winning seasons and won 0 playoff games.

The only 3 QBs to win the Super Bowl in this century that were drafted in the top 10 are the Mannings and Trent Dilfer.

Tanking a season to get a franchise QB is a bad idea.

I want to note, that I’m being purely hypothetical. I do not think our organization thinks they are at the “blow it up” point yet. Way too much talent on the roster. IMO, this again points towards the coaching. You can say the issues are personal mistakes by players, but again, I ask, isn’t it the responsibility of management to get these guys sharp enough to not make these kinds of mistakes?

In a word, no. All they can do is prepare them to play but no coach is capable of coaching all of the mistakes out of his players. Every player makes them and a player is responsible for his own mind and performance. Nobody else can take care of that for him. It's the coach's responsibility to prepare the players, to teach them what they need to know to succeed, but it's the player's responsibility to come into each game with the right mindset and to actually perform. On top of that, talent is always a factor. You can get the best head coach, QB coach and OL coach in the world but they still won't be able to will Christian Ponder to be more accurate or make Phil Loadholt quicker to react and stop speed rushers from blowing past him at inopportune moments. All they can do is give players the knowledge and techniques to do the job. The players still have to do it.

For that matter, what about putting the best guy vs. “their guy” on the field. The LB situation with Desmond Bishop stinks of this as does Robinson starting ahead of Rhodes.

I don't see any evidence to suggest either of those players is starting due to some preferential treatment, as you're implying, but the coaches are responsible for putting the players with the best chance to succeed on the field and in both cases, there's reason to question whether that's happening.

I wasn't advocating tanking the season. I would never want to do that. I'm saying let's see if we have anything in MBT, because we know that Cassel is bad. Yes, it could potentially result in us losing an extra game or two, but who knows, it could benefit us in the long run.

maembe wrote:I wasn't advocating tanking the season. I would never want to do that. I'm saying let's see if we have anything in MBT, because we know that Cassel is bad. Yes, it could potentially result in us losing an extra game or two, but who knows, it could benefit us in the long run.

It could and I don't think it's a bad idea but I also don't think we've reached the point in the season where the coaches should make that move yet.

I think the management has every reason to believe that they are better than 0-3 indicates.
They are 2 plays away from 2-1. At the same time the flaws on defense and in the trenches should be obvious and point toward them not being a championship team regardless of the QB position.

I find it hard to believe that this team is a playoff or blow it up type scenario. If things get tightened up on D and the team as a whole shows steady improvement(and that includes special teams), I see no reason not to retain Fraizer, regardless of their final record.

The reason for playing MBT would not be because there is a tank for draft pick mentality...but because Ponder is not the guy and it would make more sense to see what MBT has before the draft comes around. For all anyone knows, he could be a great player given a chance.

But if Fraizer's job is based soley on won/loss this year..the wole thing is a messed up conflict of interest. How can you do what's best for the team in the long run(develop young guys) if it will cost you your job?

Drafting a QB is not a sure thing just because you have a high pick.

I never know where to put anything with so many threads, but did anyone realize the the Vikings have the 7th best scoring offense in the NFL?...It's the defense that is more or less losing these games.

Anywho...I agree with the OP. If the Vikings move on from Ponder, then it does no good to settle on Cassel. Let's see what the kid can do.

At 0-4 I'd put Cassel in, see if he can give us a spark, could still go 10-2 to finish out the year and make the playoffs, however rare and unlikely, that's the shot I'd give Cassel to be the guy. If he pulled that off he could stick around. Soon as we hit 8 losses I'd go to MBT to evaluate him and finish out the season. If we're 2-8 that's still 6 games for MBT.

posted this in another thread but it is an option in this case...
I just say we put AP as the QB and go 100% wildcat all season. Lets see how the Defensive Coaches plan for that.