Don't bet your last dollar that Cassel is the anointed one

[jackal]

laughing at the Norv turner comments about Ponder, he has been eliminating some mistakes, as praise

[Just Me]

Interesting article comparing Ponder and Cassel: http://www.dailynorseman.com/2014/7/5/5 ... g-the-2013

Thanks for the link. Interesting article. I did note, however:

[Speaking about Ponder] Positives
• Graded well on 3rd-and-Long at +2.5. (Emphasis mine)

and

[Speaking about Ponder] Negatives
• Struggled on first down (-5.8 ) and 3rd-and-10+ (-2.8 ). (Emphasis mine)

Huh??!!!! 3rd and ten is not 3rd and long? (What constitutes: "3rd and long")?

[soflavike]

I'm not changing my avatar pic until Ponder is released. That will be a great day.

[Purple bruise]

I'm not changing my avatar pic until Ponder is released. That will be a great day.

Good for you

[PurpleMustReign]

I'm not changing my avatar pic until Ponder is released. That will be a great day.

How does that add anything relevant to the conversation?

[PurpleMustReign]

Interesting article comparing Ponder and Cassel: http://www.dailynorseman.com/2014/7/5/5 ... g-the-2013

One telling stat is how few screen plays we ran. Most of us screamed for more (or, ANY, really) amd this proves what most of us were thinking. It was a vanilla offense.

[Mothman]

One telling stat is how few screen plays we ran. Most of us screamed for more (or, ANY, really) amd this proves what most of us were thinking. It was a vanilla offense.

I don't see how throwing relatively few RB screen passes (they threw quite a few screens to the TEs and WRs) translates to "vanilla offense". The RB screen is one of the more "vanilla" pass plays in football.

It certainly wasn't the most complex, interesting offense out there. I'm just saying, I'm unclear on how throwing very few screens to the RBs serves as evidence that it was vanilla.

[Mothman]

Huh??!!!! 3rd and ten is not 3rd and long? (What constitutes: "3rd and long")?

LOL! Good question. I'm guessing they categorize "third and long" as something like "third and 6-9 yards to go" and they're making a distinction between those situations and 3rd and 10+ situations.

[Mothman]

The Vikings are about average when it comes to total screen yards. The shocking part (or not so shocking) is that the Vikings have a total of 6 yds from RB screens (Ponder 9, Cassel -3). 6 yards in an entire season? Maybe that's why they drafted McKinnon?

They may plan to use him that way but i doubt that's why they drafted him. Peterson and Gerhart were both capable of running an effective screen. It just wasn't a play Musgrave turned to much last year.

[Mothman]

Matt Cassel Was Brutal On 3rd Down Last Year

From the same article:

Here’s where Cassel outperformed Ponder by a wide margin: receiver YAC. Ponder’s third down passes resulted in an average of 4.7 YAC, which is not good. Cassel’s third down passes resulted in an average 8.6 YAC, which is very good. How does this happen? Identifying advantageous matchups. Hitting more passes down the field. Generally better ball placement. In other words, better command of the little nuances of playing the position. Of course, it didn’t hurt to have YAC monster Cordarrelle Patterson adding to his big numbers.

The fact that he actually looked for and found Greg jennings didn't hurt either. In fact, I think the majority of the difference in Cassel's YAC yardage probably comes down to those two players.

[Eli]

The Vikings are about average when it comes to total screen yards. The shocking part (or not so shocking) is that the Vikings have a total of 6 yds from RB screens (Ponder 9, Cassel -3). 6 yards in an entire season? Maybe that's why they drafted McKinnon?

I highly doubt it.

The Vikings have looked like the Keystone Cops while running RB screens the past couple of years. Lineman with no clue what to do, running backs out of position, and balls delivered poorly. Ugly as they were, those stats aren't all that surprising.

[PurpleMustReign]

I don't see how throwing relatively few RB screen passes (they threw quite a few screens to the TEs and WRs) translates to "vanilla offense". The RB screen is one of the more "vanilla" pass plays in football.

It certainly wasn't the most complex, interesting offense out there. I'm just saying, I'm unclear on how throwing very few screens to the RBs serves as evidence that it was vanilla.

Come on Jim, I never said that lack of screens was the only reason the offense was vanilla. that was just one of the reasons. I was typing on my phone and didn't want to type a lot amd figured everyone would know what I meant.

[headless_norseman]

laughing at the Norv turner comments about Ponder, he has been eliminating some mistakes, as praise

He's got to talk him up for future trade bait.

[Mothman]

Come on Jim, I never said that lack of screens was the only reason the offense was vanilla. that was just one of the reasons. I was typing on my phone and didn't want to type a lot amd figured everyone would know what I meant.

I understand but your conclusion just didn't seem to logically follow your premise so I commented. In a nutshell, what you posted was that running very few RB screen plays proved "it was a vanilla offense". I get why you think the offense was vanilla. I just disagreed with the idea that running very few RB screens proved the point one way or another.

[Purple bruise]

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/T ... d5e4828efd