"The Next Step" for Christian Ponder

[dead_poet]

Souhan: Frazier's QB approach may have to yield to Vikings reality
The Vikings coach might have to abandon his patient ways if Christian Ponder continues to struggle.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... um=twitter

[Mothman]

Souhan: Frazier's QB approach may have to yield to Vikings reality
The Vikings coach might have to abandon his patient ways if Christian Ponder continues to struggle.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... um=twitter

Souhan's sure doing his best to fan the flames of panic and controversy in the wake of Sunday's loss, isn't he? Did you see yesterday's column? It was positively idiotic. Here's a link and the quotes that prompted me to make that critical remark:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 08461.html

Let’s cut through the enabling fog: Ponder cost the Vikings a potentially important victory Sunday, and he should have taken full blame.

Don’t believe what Ponder’s apologists will tell you about the team sharing blame, and don’t look at the stat sheet, which showed 18 completions on 28 attempts for 236 yards

.

He actually makes a few good points in the column and he's absolutely right to criticize Ponder for a poor performance but the kind of myopic, QB-centric crap I quoted above just fuels the growing "cult of the QB" mentality that far too many fans and media members have succumbed to already. How anyone who knows anything about football could watch that performance by the Vikings defense and offensive line and not only adamantly state that Ponder should take full blame for the loss but encourage people to ignore the performance of the rest of the team is beyond me. He should have his license to write about football temporarily revoked. The Vikings defense was overmatched right from the start and I'm pretty sure Ponder didn't allow reggie Bush to gain 190 yards and score a TD.

Of course, today's column reveals what Souhan's really up to, which is fanning the flames of a QB controversy. I get it. That will provide months of columns that will practically write themselves.

Regarding the column you linked to above: I understand that benching a starter when the offense is struggling to score makes sense and I liked the quote from Jerry Burns about the difference between changing the starting guard and changing the starting QB. However, ALL of this is premature, a complete overreaction to a disappointing game (in which the Vikings offense still had 4 scoring drives and put 24 points on the board). While I don't have high hopes of Ponder changing his stripes and suddenly becoming a terrific QB, the fact remains that he's 4-1 in his last 5 starts. If he keeps playing like he did last week, he'll find his way to the bench soon enough but Frazier shouldn't panic.

[mondry]

Heres my thought process on this. Last year, the same sort of thing happened (imo at least) in that we saw poor play from Ponder, the O-line, and WR, while Musgrave was still figuring out what to do with Peterson and Harvin being focused on.

Against detroit so far our receivers did fine too me, so that's one part of the equation that's ahead of schedule from last year. But Detroit said "we're completely selling out on Adrian, what else can you do?" and it completely stumped Musgrave. Our first few series of run run pass ended up in 3rd and 12's routinely and of course in this offense, that's a hard pick up and Ponder and the O-line felt the stress.

However, some how, despite all that, they put it back together last year and got on a roll. I'm not really sure how to explain this but I think Musgrave is more of an analyzer than a developer. What I mean by that is, he's not going to come up with a ground breaking offense that the opponent has to deal with, but once the data is coming in from actual play time, he can decipher it and over time figure out what's best for his guys through like a trial and error type process. Well last sunday there was a lot more "error" than expected and it caught us pretty of guard. That's how it is with Musgrave though, I can't imagine that is the max role for Patterson and Jarius Wright, sure we run 2 WR's set but the solution there isn't taking Simpson or Jennings off, it's just running more 3 WR's sets! This is all new to Musgrave, we have the WR talent now to put more on the field, he'll adapt and figure it out eventually.

I'm not ready to see Ponder benched just yet because like last year, I think they can figure it out. What it really comes down to for me, is how long that takes (if it happens) and overall nothing has changed much. We knew Ponder had a good side and a bad side, and I think the lack of a good game plan from musgrave really elevated the bad side, but (and this is a huge but) let's say like last year, they get it together quickly and he goes on to have a solid 13-15 games without bad Ponder showing up. If he can't do it he can't do it, but I want him played not for my sake, but I want the coaching staff to see, without a shadow of a doubt, he either is or isn't the guy. I don't think we win a super bowl with Matt Cassell so at this point I don't want any excuses when it comes to Ponder. "Oh he might have got it together but he got hurt, let's give him one more year" type crap.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Souhan's sure doing his best to fan the flames of panic and controversy in the wake of Sunday's loss, isn't he? Did you see yesterday's column? It was positively idiotic. Here's a link and the quotes that prompted me to make that critical remark:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 08461.html
.

He actually makes a few good points in the column and he's absolutely right to criticize Ponder for a poor performance but the kind of myopic, QB-centric crap I quoted above just fuels the growing "cult of the QB" mentality that far too many fans and media members have succumbed to already. How anyone who knows anything about football could watch that performance by the Vikings defense and offensive line and not only adamantly state that Ponder should take full blame for the loss but encourage people to ignore the performance of the rest of the team is beyond me. He should have his license to write about football temporarily revoked. The Vikings defense was overmatched right from the start and I'm pretty sure Ponder didn't allow reggie Bush to gain 190 yards and score a TD.

Of course, today's column reveals what Souhan's really up to, which is fanning the flames of a QB controversy. I get it. That will provide months of columns that will practically write themselves.

Regarding the column you linked to above: I understand that benching a starter when the offense is struggling to score makes sense and I liked the quote from Jerry Burns about the difference between changing the starting guard and changing the starting QB. However, ALL of this is premature, a complete overreaction to a disappointing game (in which the Vikings offense still had 4 scoring drives and put 24 points on the board). While I don't have high hopes of Ponder changing his stripes and suddenly becoming a terrific QB, the fact remains that he's 4-1 in his last 5 starts. If he keeps playing like he did last week, he'll find his way to the bench soon enough but Frazier shouldn't panic.

Hmm I read that article and thought it was spot on. Souhan isn't babying Ponder like he (and a lot of the other sportswriters/commentators) have done for the past few years. Isnt it time someone fanned some flames? Its better for Ponder, if hes going to be a NFL starter, to see some negative columns about him when he blows some games. Not solely, but a big part of it. The gloves have to come off at some time and I am happy to see some articles in the Tribune like this one.

[Mothman]

Hmm I read that article and thought it was spot on. Souhan isn't babying Ponder like he (and a lot of the other sportswriters/commentators) have done for the past few years. Isnt it time someone fanned some flames? Its better for Ponder, if hes going to be a NFL starter, to see some negative columns about him when he blows some games. Not solely, but a big part of it. The gloves have to come off at some time and I am happy to see some articles in the Tribune like this one.

I'm fine with the criticism and the gloves came off long ago but when any fan or writer looks at a team performance like that and insists it be pinned on one player, I smell an agenda and they lose serious credibility with me.

Forget about Ponder for a second. As a Vikings fan, tell me, were you fine with that defensive performance? Do you think the defense had anything to do with that 34-24 loss and will you be okay with it if the defense never plays better than that for the rest of the season?

[PurpleKoolaid]

I'm fine with the criticism and the gloves came off long ago but when any fan or writer looks at a team performance like that and insists it be pinned on one player, I smell an agenda and they lose serious credibility with me.

Forget about Ponder for a second. As a Vikings fan, tell me, were you fine with that defensive performance? Do you think the defense had anything to do with that 34-24 loss and will you be okay with it if the defense never plays better than that for the rest of the season?

No, it looked like a tired D in the 2nd half. The offense was, what, 2 for 11 on 3rd down conversions? I don't know how long the D was on the field, but it was way too long. Its the same story as last year.

The problem isn't just Ponder. But a lot of the problems could be fixed with a QB that could make some plays, convert 2rd downs, find the open receivers (and there were MANY open receivers Sunday), and not make the mental errors he makes over and over. I just cant take the continual ups and downs (many more downs) from this QB anymore. I don't see how another QB could do any worse then a loss right now.

[dead_poet]

I'm fine with the criticism and the gloves came off long ago but when any fan or writer looks at a team performance like that and insists it be pinned on one player, I smell an agenda and they lose serious credibility with me.

Forget about Ponder for a second. As a Vikings fan, tell me, were you fine with that defensive performance? Do you think the defense had anything to do with that 34-24 loss and will you be okay with it if the defense never plays better than that for the rest of the season?

Devil's advocate: if the offense sustained more drives the Lions wouldn't have had as many opportunities to score.

[Texas Vike]

Heres my thought process on this. Last year, the same sort of thing happened (imo at least) in that we saw poor play from Ponder, the O-line, and WR, while Musgrave was still figuring out what to do with Peterson and Harvin being focused on.

Against detroit so far our receivers did fine too me, so that's one part of the equation that's ahead of schedule from last year. But Detroit said "we're completely selling out on Adrian, what else can you do?" and it completely stumped Musgrave. Our first few series of run run pass ended up in 3rd and 12's routinely and of course in this offense, that's a hard pick up and Ponder and the O-line felt the stress.

However, some how, despite all that, they put it back together last year and got on a roll. I'm not really sure how to explain this but I think Musgrave is more of an analyzer than a developer. What I mean by that is, he's not going to come up with a ground breaking offense that the opponent has to deal with, but once the data is coming in from actual play time, he can decipher it and over time figure out what's best for his guys through like a trial and error type process. Well last sunday there was a lot more "error" than expected and it caught us pretty of guard. That's how it is with Musgrave though, I can't imagine that is the max role for Patterson and Jarius Wright, sure we run 2 WR's set but the solution there isn't taking Simpson or Jennings off, it's just running more 3 WR's sets! This is all new to Musgrave, we have the WR talent now to put more on the field, he'll adapt and figure it out eventually.

I'm not ready to see Ponder benched just yet because like last year, I think they can figure it out. What it really comes down to for me, is how long that takes (if it happens) and overall nothing has changed much. We knew Ponder had a good side and a bad side, and I think the lack of a good game plan from musgrave really elevated the bad side, but (and this is a huge but) let's say like last year, they get it together quickly and he goes on to have a solid 13-15 games without bad Ponder showing up. If he can't do it he can't do it, but I want him played not for my sake, but I want the coaching staff to see, without a shadow of a doubt, he either is or isn't the guy. I don't think we win a super bowl with Matt Cassell so at this point I don't want any excuses when it comes to Ponder. "Oh he might have got it together but he got hurt, let's give him one more year" type crap.

Solid post, Mondry.

I especially agree with your observations about Musgrave. I wish he were better at improvisation, though I am confident that he is, as you state, a good analyzer and problem solver. There was no creativity on display this past Sunday. No reacting to what the Lions were doing. Or at least not enough. Get some play action going with roll outs to the right and easy passes to Rudy and Carlson!

In years past I might feel pretty disappointed about an opening loss like this and would have thought that the year looked really bleak. But we have seen Musgrave make adjustments from one game to the next and the players kept fighting. Those two points keep me from losing hope.

[Mothman]

Devil's advocate: if the offense sustained more drives the Lions wouldn't have had as many opportunities to score.

Ah, but as you know, that cuts both ways. If the defense had played better, the offense wouldn't have had to score as much. If the defense had allowed fewer sustained drives, if they had done a better job of getting off the field, the offense would have had more opportunities to score.

The bottom line I'm getting at is placing ALL of the blame for a loss on the QB relieves the rest of the team of responsibility. It suggests they all played well and the QB dragged them down. We both know that's not the case and I suspect Souhan and PurpleKoolAid do too.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Ah, but as you know, that cuts both ways. If the defense had played better, the offense wouldn't have had to score as much. If the defense had allowed fewer sustained drives, if they had done a better job of getting off the field, the offense would have had more opportunities to score.

The bottom line I'm getting at is placing ALL of the blame for a loss on the QB relieves the rest of the team of responsibility. It suggests they all played well and the QB dragged them down. We both know that's not the case and I suspect Souhan and PurpleKoolAid do too.

See, that's not what I got from the article. A lot of the blame was on Ponder, where it should be. The most important position and all. A 12th overall pick, lots of expectations, yet her continues to let down. I didn't see where he was trying to say everything was Ponders fault.

And how is a tired D supposed to get better? A refreshed D is. A D that gets to go on the field after a long drive, not a 3 and out.

[Mothman]

See, that's not what I got from the article. A lot of the blame was on Ponder, where it should be. The most important position and all. A 12th overall pick, lots of expectations, yet her continues to let down. I didn't see where he was trying to say everything was Ponders fault.

I quoted it a few posts above. Here it is again:

Let’s cut through the enabling fog: Ponder cost the Vikings a potentially important victory Sunday, and he should have taken full blame.

It's not exactly vague.

And how is a tired D supposed to get better? A refreshed D is. A D that gets to go on the field after a long drive, not a 3 and out.

LOL! So instead of answering the question, you 're choosing to redirect responsibility to the offense?

The defense was manhandled from the start in that game. If they were tired, it's their own fault. Their job is to get off the field and they did a poor job of it in that game. Now please, answer the question: Do you think the defense had anything to do with that 34-24 loss and will you be okay with it if the defense never plays better than that for the rest of the season?

[J. Kapp 11]

Ah, but as you know, that cuts both ways. If the defense had played better, the offense wouldn't have had to score as much. If the defense had allowed fewer sustained drives, if they had done a better job of getting off the field, the offense would have had more opportunities to score.

The bottom line I'm getting at is placing ALL of the blame for a loss on the QB relieves the rest of the team of responsibility. It suggests they all played well and the QB dragged them down. We both know that's not the case and I suspect Souhan and PurpleKoolAid do too.

Interesting stat...take it how you will.

The Vikings ran 55 plays Sunday.

The Eagles ran 53 Monday night against Washington...in the first half.

[S197]

Ah, but as you know, that cuts both ways. If the defense had played better, the offense wouldn't have had to score as much. If the defense had allowed fewer sustained drives, if they had done a better job of getting off the field, the offense would have had more opportunities to score.

The bottom line I'm getting at is placing ALL of the blame for a loss on the QB relieves the rest of the team of responsibility. It suggests they all played well and the QB dragged them down. We both know that's not the case and I suspect Souhan and PurpleKoolAid do too.

The defense was playing on a short field the vast majority of the game due to the Vikings starting 0/5 on 3rd down, turnovers, and Locke punting 39 yard shanks. The run defense in particular was very poor but I think they had the odds stacked against them. I understand that the main point you're making is that there's blame to spread around, and I certainly agree, but I think in this case the offense and special teams hurt the defense a lot more than the other way around.

[cstelter]

Of course, today's column reveals what Souhan's really up to, which is fanning the flames of a QB controversy. I get it. That will provide months of columns that will practically write themselves.

Regarding the column you linked to above: I understand that benching a starter when the offense is struggling to score makes sense and I liked the quote from Jerry Burns about the difference between changing the starting guard and changing the starting QB. However, ALL of this is premature, a complete overreaction to a disappointing game (in which the Vikings offense still had 4 scoring drives and put 24 points on the board). While I don't have high hopes of Ponder changing his stripes and suddenly becoming a terrific QB, the fact remains that he's 4-1 in his last 5 starts. If he keeps playing like he did last week, he'll find his way to the bench soon enough but Frazier shouldn't panic.

What you say aoubt Souhan's goal of fanning flames rings true. Is this just some kind of oops misprint or intentionally wrong in hopes no one will remember/look it up:

On Jan. 27, 1999, Randall Cunningham, who had led the Vikings to the NFC title game in 1998, accepted the Miller Lite NFL Player of the Year Award. On Oct. 17, at halftime of the second game of the 1999 season, Vikings coach Denny Green benched Cunningham in favor of veteran backup Jeff George, and George took the Vikings to the playoffs
...
On Sept. 17, 2008, two games into the season, Childress benched Jackson in favor of veteran backup Gus Frerotte, and he helped the Vikings reach the playoffs. I’d supply a Childress quote on the subject, but it’s still being translated.

Jackson was benched after two games of his third season, and his second season as a starter. Ponder is about to start the second game of his third season, and second season as a starter.

Oh my goodness-- Green pulled Cunningham in game 2 and next week is Game 2. Jackson was benched after 2 games and Ponder is about to start his 2nd game of his 2nd seasion!!! If Fraizer doesn't do the same, there is no chance that Cassle can bring us to the playoffs.... PANIC PANIC PANIC

Er, wait, Who plays their 2nd game of the season on Oct 17??? That was game *SIX* in 1999 folks, not the 2nd game of the season.

Tarvaris was benched after his 4th straight loss, 1 of which was a 2 INT job that cost his team the playoffs in 2007 (had he beaten WAS). Ponder at worst will be looking at 2-2 in his last 4 starts should he lose on Sunday, two combined victories of which clinched his team a playoff spot in the prior year.

Hardly apples to apples and clearly all rhetoric to fan flames in my opinion.

In fact history to me suggests that both times, the coaches in question were patient to allow 4 losses following a strong period in the prior year before making a change.

[Captain]

Heres my thought process on this. Last year, the same sort of thing happened (imo at least) in that we saw poor play from Ponder, the O-line, and WR, while Musgrave was still figuring out what to do with Peterson and Harvin being focused on.

Against detroit so far our receivers did fine too me, so that's one part of the equation that's ahead of schedule from last year. But Detroit said "we're completely selling out on Adrian, what else can you do?" and it completely stumped Musgrave. Our first few series of run run pass ended up in 3rd and 12's routinely and of course in this offense, that's a hard pick up and Ponder and the O-line felt the stress.

However, some how, despite all that, they put it back together last year and got on a roll. I'm not really sure how to explain this but I think Musgrave is more of an analyzer than a developer. What I mean by that is, he's not going to come up with a ground breaking offense that the opponent has to deal with, but once the data is coming in from actual play time, he can decipher it and over time figure out what's best for his guys through like a trial and error type process. Well last sunday there was a lot more "error" than expected and it caught us pretty of guard. That's how it is with Musgrave though, I can't imagine that is the max role for Patterson and Jarius Wright, sure we run 2 WR's set but the solution there isn't taking Simpson or Jennings off, it's just running more 3 WR's sets! This is all new to Musgrave, we have the WR talent now to put more on the field, he'll adapt and figure it out eventually.

I'm not ready to see Ponder benched just yet because like last year, I think they can figure it out. What it really comes down to for me, is how long that takes (if it happens) and overall nothing has changed much. We knew Ponder had a good side and a bad side, and I think the lack of a good game plan from musgrave really elevated the bad side, but (and this is a huge but) let's say like last year, they get it together quickly and he goes on to have a solid 13-15 games without bad Ponder showing up. If he can't do it he can't do it, but I want him played not for my sake, but I want the coaching staff to see, without a shadow of a doubt, he either is or isn't the guy. I don't think we win a super bowl with Matt Cassell so at this point I don't want any excuses when it comes to Ponder. "Oh he might have got it together but he got hurt, let's give him one more year" type crap.

Spot on. You couldn't have put my thoughts to words better. Although I was thinking what would happen if we switched Musgrave to QB coach (which he has a good history at) and any other Offensive coach that shows brains to OC what creative things we could do?...Its a pretty out there thought, but what the hell I'm not sold on Musgrave. I think he's as much a problem as OC as anything else on this team.