Vikings QB of the future search list

[mondry]

He said the system was a "large part" of what was happening there but then added that "it helps when you have a couple of stud receivers and stud pass-catching RB".

If you watch the Bears and some of the spectacular catches Jeffery, Marshall and Bennett make, not to mention the time they've been giving their QBs to throw this season, I think it's clear that the system alone isn't what's making the QBs look good. It helps, and so does Trestman's sharp offensive coaching (as dead-poet said, he has a reputation for getting the best out of quarterbacks), but as always, the surrounding talent is a big factor too. The personnel moves they've made have had a big impact on the offense. Put simply, it's not the system that has led to success for Bears QBs this season, it's the combination of moves they made to improve their offense. They got the right offensive-minded coach, put a good system in place, rebuilt their line, added the pass-catching TE they needed to complement their two big outside receivers and, with Forte in the backfield, created a "pick your poison" problem for defenses. Without the right personnel, that system, like any system, won't work. If they were blocking up front like they did the last few years there's no way their offense would be as effective as it's been. However, with the right personnel, and a smart coach/playcalller, the QBs and the offense are looking very, very good.

It's the synergy of all those things working in combination that has been a problem for the Vikings. It's not just the coaches and systems. It starts with Spielman and goes right down through the coaching ranks to inconsistent execution by the players and the only way to fix it is to make the right changes at each level. That doesn't mean firing or cutting everybody but it does mean there needs to be some change in terms of both the coaching staff and the personnel and it all starts with Spielman and ownership.

Great post, you made my point even better than I did! Bottom line, the Vikings are no where near emulating what the bears have done in pretty much all aspects. Well said!

[Mothman]

Great post, you made my point even better than I did! Bottom line, the Vikings are no where near emulating what the bears have done in pretty much all aspects. Well said!

Thanks, but my point was somewhat different than "Our coaches and systems make guys like Ponder look like total busts". I don't think that's what's happening.

However, I do think the Vikes could pull off what the Bears have done on offense. It's just going to have to start with Spielman and a willingness to make some serious changes.

[mondry]

I think his scheme would look a lot better with a more talented, more experienced QB running it and more consistent pass blocking up front.

And I think the sun will rise tomorrow! LOL, just messing with you Jim!

They have scored a decent amount of points, and honestly, that's the FRUSTRATING part about it. See, I look at it as our defense giving up a lot of points, so games unintentionally become sort of shootout like. Not all of them, but it certainly factors into it. The defense has been "better" lately (a relative term to just how awful they were early on) but before it was common to lose scoring 30 or so points, although I guess it still is.

My point is, some of those points aren't the most rewarding that they've gotten, the garbage time TD against Carolina for example. Couldn't do anything all game but pick up a gimme late. I'm not going to go back and look but I believe it was similar in Seattle, and the first game against GB. On the other side, we've done well against the bad defenses like Washington, Chicago, and Pittsburgh so they should get some credit.

[Mothman]

And I think the sun will rise tomorrow! LOL, just messing with you Jim!

That's okay. Apparently we both appreciate these brilliant-yet-obvious "insights".

They have scored a decent amount of points, and honestly, that's the FRUSTRATING part about it. See, I look at it as our defense giving up a lot of points, so games unintentionally become sort of shootout like. Not all of them, but it certainly factors into it. The defense has been "better" lately (a relative term to just how awful they were early on) but before it was common to lose scoring 30 or so points, although I guess it still is.

My point is, some of those points aren't the most rewarding that they've gotten, the garbage time TD against Carolina for example. Couldn't do anything all game but pick up a gimme late. I'm not going to go back and look but I believe it was similar in Seattle, and the first game against GB. On the other side, we've done well against the bad defenses like Washington, Chicago, and Pittsburgh so they should get some credit.

I think most other teams have some of those "garbage" points too so perhaps it evens out.

It really is frustrating, all the more so because if Musgrave would be less predictable and (in some situations anyway) conservative with his playcalling, the offense might be able to do much more, even with their limitations.

[dead_poet]

Timely post on the Cutler-McCown discussion. Worth the read:

Jay Cutler and the Bears’ Contract Dilemma

http://nflphilosophy.com/jay-cutler-and ... t-dilemma/

In the weeks where Cutler took the most snaps (weeks 1-6, 10), the Bears are 4-3. When McCown has taken the most snaps (7, 9, 11-14), the Bears are 3-4. While McCown seems to have the better numbers, the Bears actually have a worse record under McCown. When looking at opponents, Cutler’s opponents are a combined 46-44 (51 percent) and McCown has faced teams whose records are now 31-45 (41 percent). Neither has faced a slate of tough competition but Cutler has clearly faced a more competitive schedule based on records. Based on Football Outsider’s week 13 DVOA rankings, Cutler has faced an average of defensive DVOA ranking of 14.7. McCown’s faced an average DVOA ranking of 22.0.

McCown has faced lesser competition and lesser defenses and put up better passing numbers, but with a worse record. Add in the fact that Cutler is younger and one of the most physically gifted throwers in the league, and it seems far fetched that the Bears would let Cutler walk free.

[mondry]

[

I think most other teams have some of those "garbage" points too so perhaps it evens out.

It really is frustrating, all the more so because if Musgrave would be less predictable and (in some situations anyway) conservative with his playcalling, the offense might be able to do much more, even with their limitations.

For sure, Washington gets a lot of them, I've had Rg3 in one of my fantasy football leagues so it's been a nightmare. I basically start hoping they lose by 20 like last week at half time and he can get some garbage time points lol

Yeah, and admittedly it doesn't really help my argument but at times they've looked border line unstoppable. Sure often enough it's a player messing up or Ponder being Ponder but other times it's Musgrave and some of his untimely play calls or decisions to get conservative have killed drives as well or resulted in what feels like "playing for fg's".

I mean we do have Jennings, who's getting up there but still looks open a lot to me, still gets the job done. Simpson, he's probably performed above most peoples expectations and of course Patterson has his share of nice plays. Then last year's MVP is in the back field as well. The o-line could use another player at OG and hopefully Kalil can pick it up, they'll have some bad match ups like SUH from the lions and Loadholt has his problems with certain rushers but overall I get the feeling like you said, they might be able to do more even with the problems they have.

[Eli]

I don't think there's any question that the Vikings will be taking a QB relatively high in the 2014 draft. If they were to sign someone such as Cutler (which is very unlikely) then that QB might be drafted in the 3rd or 4th round. If not, it will be a 1st or 2nd round pick.

The question of who the Vikings' QB of the future will be, however, isn't nearly as simple. We all know what happened the last time the Vikings took a QB in the first round. He turned out to be stupendous bust on whom they wasted three full seasons. The next one could turn out the same. In the meantime, maybe not this year, but next year or the year after, they might have a chance to sign a good young veteran QB.

It's impossible to say with this organization right now. How they'll be put together in the future is just about anyone's guess. They want to do it through the draft, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the cost of talent. But wanting something and actually doing it are two different things.

[Rus]

There's very decent quarterbacks in this upcoming draft. Whether or not the Vikings front office is capable of doing in-depth research, bringing in coaches with systems that fit the quarterback they end up with is another matter entirely.

Typically, every 3-4 years there's a draft with a few very good quarterbacks. Typically you can wind up with one of them if you can keep your pick under 10 and your front office did the due diligence. Unfortunately, most of the time when the Vikings need a quarterback, they don't seem to be able to get in under the 11th pick.

I trust them a little more to draft defensive and offensive skill players as this FO seems to know how to do that fairly well. In all honesty, though, I trust them only to sign a known commodity at quarterback as a free agent. We're talking taking a long look at guys who are 35 years old and up there who have been starting quarterbacks that have played at a high level consistently at some point in their careers. I don't entirely trust their ability to locate solid offensive linemen, but they've been a lot more successful at that if not very consistent.

The Vikings front office hasn't really ever engendered a sense of trust with me when it comes to quarterbacks - all the way down through to the coaches and up through the ownership.

My feeling is...this team might as well be better off with Matt Cassell running it until they can stumble on a real franchise quarterback that takes a look at the Vikings and says "if Matt Cassell can put up decent yardage in that system then I could win a lot of games there" and signs a free agent deal that doesn't make Zygi Wilf lose his appetite. But I don't think that many quality guys are really lining up to play in Brent Musgrave's system right now. That's probably going to have to change. And it's not like a lot of guys are taking a long look at Alan Williams's very low ranked defense and saying "that will give me a lot of opportunities to be on the field".

[VikingLord]

Okay, fair enough but when "shifting approach to maximize future value" is viewed in the context of your previous comments in this thread, I have a hard time reconciling it with those comments and interpreting it as anything other than a way of saying they should intentionally lose games without actually saying it. If that's not the case then how am I to interpret comments like:

You interpret them as the facts they are I guess.

I see the value in getting some younger players more experience, within reason, but what you've been posting strongly suggests the real motivation in "going young" would be to improve draft position. If that's not the case, if the idea isn't to go out and lose games to get a better pick, then why all the comments about improving draft position? Let's face it, there's only one way to do that other than trading up and that's by losing games. It's hard for me to buy that losing would just be the happy but unintended side effect of playing younger players. That's not what your comment about picking closer to 5th than 10th implies.

It's a statement of fact.

Right now, you feel the sting of each loss. When the draft rolls around and the Vikings miss out on a Luck or a trade bonanza, or AD is recovering from a serious injury, you'll feel the sting of the meaningless wins and their implication for the future.

On top of all that, I still don't see what possible motivation Frazier could have to "play ball" and do what you're suggesting unless he's already been assured he'll return as head coach next year.

You know, the ironic thing is, if I were the owner and I saw my coach shifting strategy based on current conditions, I'd actually give him credit for it rather than penalize him. I'd much prefer a coach that shows he can recognize and adapt to changing conditions.

It's been a spirited discussion (thank you for that) and we've both made our points so if you want to drop this now, I'll understand. If you want to continue, I'm fine with that too.

I think you and I are just on different wavelengths when it comes to this topic. I respect your position, and quite honestly, a few years ago I'd probably have been in total agreement with it, but as things stand now, and as they've stood with this team now for several seasons, I no longer agree.

[VikingLord]

Integrity is not doing what needs to be done even when it's difficult. In fact that doesn't even resemble what integrity is, so what you are suggesting has nothing to do with integrity as the rest of the human race defines it. You are describing something more vague than integrity, tough-minded perhaps. But it also carries the scent (If not stink) of things that are in no way characteristic of integrity.

Here are some synonyms of integrity, and none describe what you are describing:


character, decency, goodness, honesty, morality, probity, rectitude, righteousness, rightness, uprightness, virtue, virtuousness

Here's what I meant - when a team's leadership stays true to the larger goal of putting the team in the best possible position to win a championship, then they give themselves the best possible chance, even if by doing so they take losses in the shorter term.

[mosscarter]

who is speaking of character and dignity with this team? the love boat incident, and exactly how many arrests have we had (i heard more than any team in the nfl over a certain period of time). and face the facts, teams in every sport tank games all the time its a fact of life. the vikings should have lost that game in washington because it truly was "meaningless." we would be in a much better position right now if they had that is a fact.

[saint33]

and face the facts, teams in every sport tank games all the time its a fact of life.

I'm not sure you know what a "fact" is.

[Mothman]

Right now, you feel the sting of each loss. When the draft rolls around and the Vikings miss out on a Luck or a trade bonanza, or AD is recovering from a serious injury, you'll feel the sting of the meaningless wins and their implication for the future.

I doubt it. I've never really felt the sting of the Vikes missing out on Luck or RGIII. I honestly don't regret at all that they won that game in Washington in 2011.

I do, however, wish they'd had the insight to draft Russell Wilson.

I think you and I are just on different wavelengths when it comes to this topic. I respect your position, and quite honestly, a few years ago I'd probably have been in total agreement with it, but as things stand now, and as they've stood with this team now for several seasons, I no longer agree.

I understand and as you said, we're on different wavelengths when it comes to this topic. I certainly understand why your focus is on future improvement. That's what I want to see too. We just have very different ideas about how that should be accomplished.

[Funkytown]

Having said that, Jerome Simpson and co. need to stop the stupid celebrations. I was happy to see even Jared didn't do his ridiculous calf roping routine after he sack last sunday...now if we can get robison to knock it off!

No way! That's good stuff!

I want them to keep making plays...and celebrating if that's their preference.

And then I'll celebrate in my living room, because that's my preference!

[mosscarter]

hey saint i know the 1919 world series fix is a fact and so was the scandal at Northwestern in the late 90's.