Vikings Message Board.Com

indianation65 wrote:The title to this topic makes me laugh, simply because I can only imagine who might want to trade anything for Ponder.

Who wouldn't trade _something_ for a solid backup QB?

Start fresh or let him linger a la a Mark Sanchez?

I only ask because if they can't find a trade partner then should they just cut him or would he hold any value at all on this roster next year?

PacificNorseWest wrote:Start fresh or let him linger a la a Mark Sanchez?

I only ask because if they can't find a trade partner then should they just cut him or would he hold any value at all on this roster next year?

I think so. For example:

105.5
114.6
94.7
114.2
120.2
113.1
103.9

Those are all passer ratings Ponder has posted over the last two seasons, usually in wins. In contrast, Matt Cassel, a QB many fans seem to consider a perfectly legitimate option at QB for the Vikings next year, doesn't have that many games with a passer rating over 90 in the past three seasons.

We all understand that Ponder has been an inconsistent player and he's had some poor passer ratings and bad games but don't you think a QB who can play well enough to post ratings like those above and help his team win games clearly has value? It's just a matter of how much value he has in comparison to alternatives.

dead_poet wrote:
Here's a list of the 2013 back QBs (published July 10, 2013)

The only ones I'd want on that list are Orton and Hill as far as a veteran backup goes. Of course i'd take any of the guys with less than 2 years in the league over Ponder but those guys won't be available without spending a 3rd round pick minimum to get them.

Mothman wrote: I think so. For example:

105.5
114.6
94.7
114.2
120.2
113.1
103.9

Those are all passer ratings Ponder has posted over the last two seasons, usually in wins. In contrast, Matt Cassel, a QB many fans seem to consider a perfectly legitimate option at QB for the Vikings next year, doesn't have that many games with a passer rating over 90 in the past three seasons.

We all understand that Ponder has been an inconsistent player and he's had some poor passer ratings and bad games but don't you think a QB who can play well enough to post ratings like those above and help his team win games clearly has value? It's just a matter of how much value he has in comparison to alternatives.

I think that's the issue. Not only if those alternatives are comparable just on the field, but in terms of contractual obligations as well.

PacificNorseWest wrote:I think that's the issue. Not only if those alternatives are comparable just on the field, but in terms of contractual obligations as well.

I agree. He clearly has value, it's just a question of whether they can come up with better options.

I don't understand how a lousy starting QB could be considered an acceptable backup. In today's game, chances are pretty good that your backup will be playing a few games as a starter. Ponder coming off the bench makes me just as sick-to-my-stomach as Ponder starting the game.

You need someone with "game-brain", not an indecisive, limp-armed, chicken of a QB that has proven his lack of mettle over and over again. I don't care what Ponder's passer rating is, or his yardage or his Wunderlich or anything else. HE IS A KNOWN QUANTITY AS A STARTER... and it's a low number. The Vikings need to dump Ponder and not waste any further effort on discovering his inner-Montana... there isn't any in there.

Let's get a decent veteran (Cassel will do), and get a young QB with potential to work with. No more retreads looking to reignite careers, we need to look forward.

I woudn't trade much for a solid backup, most years, backup QBs are available in FA. Also, If I was a GM, I would spend at least 1 pick every draft on a QB. Whether he was a 5,6,7th pick or whatever. My theory is that if your 3rd QB wasn't good enough to become the Backup, then he probably isn't good enough to be on the team at all. And if you have a good QB starting, and have found a great Backup, then either need to have a plan for him starting before his contract expires, or trade him off to a team and get some picks.. IE Flynn, Colb, Schaub, ect ect. This is just me, but my team would never have the same 3 QBs any consecutive years.

As far as Ponder goes, I don't think he will be a guy to help guide or tutor another young QB coming to our team. I don't think that he is worthy of being a starter, and Im not sure we get anything if we try to trade him. what I would do is pickup a Vet FA that can start if need be, or help train/groom a rookie in the ways of the NFL. and then Draft 1 or 2 QBs, One in first 3 rounds, and one with our later picks. See what competition can do for us. If they all stink, then that just gives us a better shot at a top pick where we get the QB of our choosing next season.

soflavike wrote:I don't understand how a lousy starting QB could be considered an acceptable backup. In today's game, chances are pretty good that your backup will be playing a few games as a starter. Ponder coming off the bench makes me just as sick-to-my-stomach as Ponder starting the game.

You need someone with "game-brain", not an indecisive, limp-armed, chicken of a QB that has proven his lack of mettle over and over again. I don't care what Ponder's passer rating is, or his yardage or his Wunderlich or anything else. HE IS A KNOWN QUANTITY AS A STARTER... and it's a low number. The Vikings need to dump Ponder and not waste any further effort on discovering his inner-Montana... there isn't any in there.

Let's get a decent veteran (Cassel will do), and get a young QB with potential to work with. No more retreads looking to reignite careers, we need to look forward.

Ideally it would be nice to have two starting quarterback caliber guys as number one and two on the depth chart, but let's be real...If your #2 is starting caliber then he's probably doing just that (starting) somewhere else. We can't have it both ways. In fact, very capable backups are guys like Shaun Hill and Tarvaris Jackson. Both of whom had Viking tenures. Christian Ponder would be a very good backup.

Ponder's passer rating.
How many of those games are sub 200 yard dink and dunk fests? What happens when he's asked to actually move the ball and make plays? Yeah. Thought so.
We went through this song and dance before, guy has almost a third of his completions last year BEHIND the line of scrimmage. If Cassel was a spineless earthworm he'd have a better QB rating too. And fewer wins most likely.

Value? 2.7 million for Ponder this next year. I'll take Tebow for veteran minimum, save about 2 million, and just cross my fingers if he has to start...at least he has the balls to go deep late and try to make a play now and then. More leadership in his pinky toe than Bummy McBumBum too.

Well I don't see them cutting him. So if they can't trade him I am sure he will be on the team.

The only reason to keep Ponder would be that he "already knows the system"... but wait, there's a new system this year... so, he would need to learn a whole new enchilada. I think we can do better. I'll take Shaun Hill, or Kyle Orton, or Homie the Clown over Ponder.

soflavike wrote:I don't understand how a lousy starting QB could be considered an acceptable backup. In today's game, chances are pretty good that your backup will be playing a few games as a starter. Ponder coming off the bench makes me just as sick-to-my-stomach as Ponder starting the game.

You need someone with "game-brain", not an indecisive, limp-armed, chicken of a QB that has proven his lack of mettle over and over again. I don't care what Ponder's passer rating is, or his yardage or his Wunderlich or anything else. HE IS A KNOWN QUANTITY AS A STARTER... and it's a low number. The Vikings need to dump Ponder and not waste any further effort on discovering his inner-Montana... there isn't any in there.

Let's get a decent veteran (Cassel will do), and get a young QB with potential to work with. No more retreads looking to reignite careers, we need to look forward.

No more retreads and then you endorse Cassell who is by any definition a total "retread"

Purple bruise wrote:No more retreads and then you endorse Cassell who is by any definition a total "retread"

Cassel played decently enough to merit consideration as our backup. When I said "no retread", I should have said "no retreads as our starter". Like McNabb, for example.

Webbfann wrote:

I'd trade him for ice cream cone!!

Hah, with no ice cream in it.