What if this had happened? Would you stiil want Ponder out?

[mondry]

If we're talking about perspective why don't we take a look at the offense and see what kind of help they've gotten from the defense and special teams. Gifted field position will be counted as starting at no worse than one's own 40 yard line due to a turnover. At the same time, what does the other team get out of our turnovers using the same criteria? This will give a much more accurate picture of how many points the offense is responsible for, compared to the defense scoring or giving them a short field, and / or special teams touchdowns.

(Note : This is not points off turnovers, as some turnovers result in TD's but ultimately started further than one's own 40 yard line away, they will not count. Beyond that distance the defense assumes responsibility for stopping the opponent. This is simply to be more fair to Christian Ponder and the opposing QB's.)

Vikings
MIN Pick #1 returned 33 yards TOUCHDOWN (nullified by Suh penalty, enforced at MIN 39) (Leads to DET pick #1, zero points)
MIN Pick #2 returned 0 yards to DET 30 points off turnover = 7 (J.Bell 2 yard TD run)
MIN Fumble #1 returned 0 yards to MIN 39 points off turnover = 7 (J.Fauria 1 yard TD catch)
MIN Pick #3 returned MIN 42 points off turnover = 0 (Stafford Kneels [END GAME])

Lions
DET Pick #1 returned to MIN 35 points off turnover = 7 (Peterson TD)
DET Pick #2 returned to MIN 30 points off turnover = Zero, Ponder throws MIN Pick #2

Total points off gifted field position = 0 (out of 24 = 0%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 0 (out of 24 = 0%)

For Lions
Total points off gifted field position = 7 (out of 34 = 20%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 0 (out of 34 = 0%)

Vikings
Pick #1 returned to CLE 46 points off turnover = Zero, Ponder fumbles recovered by CLE
Pick #2 returned to MIN 49 points off turnover = Zero, another fumble.
Pick #3 returned to CLE 9 points off turnover = 7 (Ponder scrambles for TD).
Muffed punt #1 recovered by MIN at CLE 26, points off turnover = 3 (FG).

Browns
Pick #1 returned to MIN 38 points off turnover = 7 (TD J.Cameron)
Fumble #1 returned to CLE 22 points off turnover = Zero (Time expires, half time!)
Fumble #2 returned to CLE 37 points off turnover = Zero (Defensive stop)

Total points off gifted field position = 10 (out of 27 = 37%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 0 (out of 27 = 0%)

For Browns
Total points off gifted field position = 7 (out of 31 = 22.5%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 0 (out of 31 = 0%)

Vikings
MIN Pick #1 Returned 44 yards TOUCHDOWN (T. Jennings pick 6)
MIN Fumble #1 returned to MIN 47 points off turnover = Zero - 3 and out

Bears
Fumble #1 Returned 61 yards by Robison, TOUCHDOWN!
Pick #1 returned to MIN 20 points off turnover = 0 (Ponder throws a pick 6)
Pick #2 returned to MIN 12 points off turnover = 3 (FG)
Fumble #1 returned to CHI 48 points off turnover = 3 (FG)

Total points off gifted field position = 3 (out of 30 = 10%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 14 (out of 30 = 46%)

For Bears
Total points off gifted field position = 0 (out of 31 = 0%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 7 (out of 31 = 22.5%)

Enter Matt Cassel

Vikings - NONE

Steelers
Pick #1 returned to PIT 37 points off turnover = 7, TD to Jennings.
Fumble #1 recovered at MIN 11, Cassel kneels for -2 yards [END GAME]

Total points off gifted field position = 7 (out of 34 = 20%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 0 (out of 34 = 0%)

For Steelers
Total points off gifted field position = 0 (out of 27 = 0%)
Total points from defense / special teams = 0 (out of 27 = 0%)


So how do we use this data. Well, as you can see, against the Lions, the offense earned all 24 points. The lions however were gifted 7 by Ponder's fumble. Against the Bears you can see we had 14 points due to special teams (Patterson Kick return for TD, Robison fumble recovered for TD) and 3 points gifted to us. That makes 17 out of 30! The bears on the other hand were gifted 7 points by Ponder's pick 6. Against the Browns we have 10 of our 27 points gifted to us, while they were gifted 7 from a Ponder interception. Moving onto the steelers we had 7 of our 34 points gifted to us and in return gave up zero gifted points all together.

This is our score once you subtract the gifted points delivered by our defense, we then subtract that score from the points we also gave away to the other team via gifted turnovers such as pick 6's, or good field position. Since it simply worked out that all the gifted points to the other team happened to be from Ponder, this is essentially his score.

Game 1 - 24 points for, gave away 7 = net +17
Game 2 - 13 points for, gave away 7 = net +6
Game 3 - 17 points for, gave away 7 = net +10

Game 4 - 27 points for, gave away 0 = net +27

Now everyone's talking about how the game almost ended the same way but I think the bigger story is if Ponder plays, we lose this game in a vastly different way! He's never come close to a net value of 27 points this year. Once you subtract all the help from the defense / special teams, and the turnovers, then factor in his own ability to help the other team out, his best game is +17 when we needed +21 to win. (PIT offense earned +27 points but gifted -7)

That's why Cassel gives some of us hope, compared to Ponder's +6 and +10's in which he barely out performs his own negative plays he's like a god lol. If Cassel can't sustain +27 then fine, oh well, but we KNOW Ponder can't, and hasn't once this year! I wont argue it's the defenses job to stop someone at all times but this is simply the way I wanted to do the analysis so take it for whatever you want. If I had included all points off of turnovers Ponder's scores would drop further.

[Funkytown]

Thanks for all that, mondry. It was a good read and very insightful. You're awesome, except for when we battle about Brad. Really, though, great stuff.

[yezzir]

Cassel has competency and a nice touch on his passes. I believe he called a couple audibles. He was talking with AD on the sideline about the Steeler's run defense and Cassel told AD how he would like to see him attack the running plays. Cassel gave the team a speech at half time. He is a leader.

Cassel gets it, and he is at the least, competent. He wants this job to be his, and I feel it should be for the rest of the year.

[PurpleHalo]

Cassel has competency and a nice touch on his passes. I believe he called a couple audibles. He was talking with AD on the sideline about the Steeler's run defense and Cassel told AD how he would like to see him attack the running plays. Cassel gave the team a speech at half time. He is a leader.

Cassel gets it, and he is at the least, competent. He wants this job to be his, and I feel it should be for the rest of the year.

You know what it did for me? I was on the screw it lets go tank it and get a QB. I have changed that view some, even though I don't know that Cassel is the long time answer. At least I am not forced to watch Ponder painfully drudge through drives and make so many bone headed plays. Now I don't care as much about tanking, I had fun watching this team Sunday. Maybe there is a slight chance Cassel found an offense for his abilities, and they can build on this and fix the defense next year, and become a threat.

Probably a lot of wishful thinking, but like I said decent QB play can change the outlook dramatically. Now if Cassel lays a turd in week 6 who knows, but for now I am calm.

[psjordan]

... {good stuff} ...

Not sure this analysis is "robust" since Cassel's only had one game at the helm, but:
Thanks for putting this together! Nice to see it in one place.
I do not take issue with your conclusion that Ponder would have hurt us, very likely all the way to a loss against PIT.
While it may not be a sledgehammer, I think it does point one in the direction of Cassel over Ponder for the next start.
Your post probably should be it's own thread!

[DanAS]

The biggest problem with Ponder is that the Vikings braintrust, and I use that term loosely, behave like he is a franchise quarterback. In other words, in order to ensure that they don't shake his confidence, they don't bother to bring in high caliber QBs to compete with him. Frankly I would rather replace Ponder with another QB who played just like him but had a different name, just so it would break the fever known among Vikings fans as Ponder-is-our-guy-because-we-drafted-him.

As for whether Cassell played better than Ponder did, I agree with the columnist who said that the answer is yes, not because Cassell's low quality throws were less bothersome than Ponder's but because his high-quality throws were better. I had forgotten that this franchise was allowed to throw a ball that hits a wide receiver in stride. I thought that was something that only other teams were allowed to do. I had thought that we were only entitled to have big plays in the running and kick returning game.

Seriously, Ponder stinks. I don't even think the issue is worth debating any more. I'd rather debate something more useful, like burial versus cremation or Cambridge versus Oxford. Ponder is bad in virtually every phase of the game except running outside of the pocket. Just because he is a better QB than Joe Webb doesn't make him ready for prime time. But when you unpack that statement, it does make the Vikings "braintrust" NOT ready for prime time.

[Webbfann]

Careful there Bubba. You were doing pretty good there till you hit your head.

Just because he is a better QB than Joe Webb doesn't make him ready for prime time. But when you unpack that statement, it does make the Vikings "braintrust" NOT ready for prime time.

[Mothman]

Mondry, I appreciate you putting those stats together. It's always interesting to see the impact turnovers have on games.

I mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago that I don't really agree with the concept of gifted TDs unless they're TDs actually scored by the defense. If an offense takes over inside a team's 10 or 20 yard line, their odds of scoring a TD are obviously much better than if they have to drive 80 yards to get one. Field position is undeniably important in football but I think TDs scored by the offense are always earned. If a team takes over in decent field goal range, they're going to score at least 3 points often enough that, statistically speaking, it's probably fair to consider that starting field position a gift of 3 points. However, TDs are a different story. An offense has to move the ball and get into the endzone to earn 7 so I don't believe TDs should be considered unearned gifts, nor should a defense be excused for allowing a 30 or 40 yard TD drive. When an offense takes over with that kind of field position, it's the defense's job, at a minimum, to force a FG. 1st and 10 at the 40 yard line has never been, and never will be, a guaranteed 7 points.

I just can't agree with the idea that a defense "assumes responsibility for stopping the opponent" when the the other team "started further than one's own 40 yard line away". That implies they aren't responsible for preventing TDs when the opposing team gets the ball inside the 40 but the truth is, it's ALWAYs the defense's responsibility to stop the opponent. That doesn't begin outside the 40. It begins whenever and wherever they take the field.

[mondry]

Thanks for all that, mondry. It was a good read and very insightful. You're awesome, except for when we battle about Brad. Really, though, great stuff.

LOL, thanks!

Not sure this analysis is "robust" since Cassel's only had one game at the helm, but:
Thanks for putting this together! Nice to see it in one place.
I do not take issue with your conclusion that Ponder would have hurt us, very likely all the way to a loss against PIT.
While it may not be a sledgehammer, I think it does point one in the direction of Cassel over Ponder for the next start.
Your post probably should be it's own thread!

Nah it's not, it's something I suppose I could keep going if Cassel plays more games but not sure anyone's interested in that.

Np, I just wanted to make something that dug slightly deeper into our 28.8 points per game.

Mondry, I appreciate you putting those stats together. It's always interesting to see the impact turnovers have on games.

I mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago that I don't really agree with the concept of gifted TDs unless they're TDs actually scored by the defense. If an offense takes over inside a team's 10 or 20 yard line, their odds of scoring a TD are obviously much better than if they have to drive 80 yards to get one. Field position is undeniably important in football but I think TDs scored by the offense are always earned. If a team takes over in decent field goal range, they're going to score at least 3 points often enough that, statistically speaking, it's probably fair to consider that starting field position a gift of 3 points. However, TDs are a different story. An offense has to move the ball and get into the endzone to earn 7 so I don't believe TDs should be considered unearned gifts, nor should a defense be excused for allowing a 30 or 40 yard TD drive. When an offense takes over with that kind of field position, it's the defense's job, at a minimum, to force a FG. 1st and 10 at the 40 yard line has never been, and never will be, a guaranteed 7 points.

I just can't agree with the idea that a defense "assumes responsibility for stopping the opponent" when the the other team "started further than one's own 40 yard line away". That implies they aren't responsible for preventing TDs when the opposing team gets the ball inside the 40 but the truth is, it's ALWAYs the defense's responsibility to stop the opponent. That doesn't begin outside the 40. It begins whenever and wherever they take the field.

Thanks Jim, I just wanted to see what the results of the next drive, post turnover were, and how that may have impacted the overall score. I'm well aware of many problems with this data / analysis, even ones that haven't been brought up yet, as well as your stance on when a defense is held responsible. The other "hidden" point I wanted to see is how many points we got when we actually had to drive more than 61 yards to get points. Of course the data doesn't show that, it shows the opposite but it's easy enough to figure out from there.

I did say "I won't argue it's the defenses job to stop someone at -all times- but this is simply the way I wanted to do the analysis so take it for whatever you want." The reason I say I won't argue it is because I AGREE WITH YOU! The defense -should- stop someone no matter where they start, at least when it comes to TD's, however you and I both know that doesn't always happen so this was to see the impact of that, both FOR and AGAINST us. (How our turnovers hurt us, how theirs might have helped us, based on what actually happened using hindsight, etc)

I agree with your criticism, it might make more sense to only look at the TDs scored by the defense / special teams and field goals that start in field goal range, might paint a different picture anyway. I think a possession starting inside the opponents 20 that ends in a TD could be qualified as a gift but it's all subjective. Surely inside the 5 is when it really becomes tough for the defense to win out.

[Mothman]

Thanks Jim, I just wanted to see what the results of the next drive, post turnover were, and how that may have impacted the overall score. I'm well aware of many problems with this data / analysis, even ones that haven't been brought up yet, as well as your stance on when a defense is held responsible. The other "hidden" point I wanted to see is how many points we got when we actually had to drive more than 61 yards to get points. Of course the data doesn't show that, it shows the opposite but it's easy enough to figure out from there.

I did say "I won't argue it's the defenses job to stop someone at -all times- but this is simply the way I wanted to do the analysis so take it for whatever you want." The reason I say I won't argue it is because I AGREE WITH YOU! The defense -should- stop someone no matter where they start, at least when it comes to TD's, however you and I both know that doesn't always happen so this was to see the impact of that, both FOR and AGAINST us. (How our turnovers hurt us, how theirs might have helped us, based on what actually happened using hindsight, etc)

I agree with your criticism, it might make more sense to only look at the TDs scored by the defense / special teams and field goals that start in field goal range, might paint a different picture anyway. I think a possession starting inside the opponents 20 that ends in a TD could be qualified as a gift but it's all subjective. Surely inside the 5 is when it really becomes tough for the defense to win out.

Yeah, theres definitely a point at which a TD must become extremely likely (statistically speaking). I'm not sure where it starts but if a team gets the ball inside the 5, it's tough to keep them out.

I think my views on this were shaped in part by watching the Purple People Eaters defenses as a kid. They had more than their share of goal line stands.

Anyway, as you said, it's interesting to see the impact turnovers and field position have had on these games!

[PurpleMustReign]

You're not fooling anyone, Jim... They didn't even have football when you were a kid.

[Mothman]

You're not fooling anyone, Jim... They didn't even have football when you were a kid.

Just a melon... and it never lasted long. One good kick and the game was over.