Vikings Message Board.Com

Webbfann wrote:You're contradicting the obvious implications of your own argument. The fact that they see Cassel as a reliable starter, as you admit they must, is one of the main reasons they could afford to pass on a QB at #9. Plus, even Mothman said numerous times last season that defense was our biggest need. I know this because we had to endure him arguing that even Ponder could have won more games if only our D was better.

I didn't see the above until VikingLord quoted it but now I have to ask, why the weird dig?

Why was that somewhat obvious point was something you had to "endure". In games Ponder started alone, the defense blew 4 leads in the final minute of games. They allowed more points than other defense in the league last year. It seems self-evident that they could have won more games if the defense had played better.

Purple bruise wrote: See Ponder's career for a prime example, a rookie with no training camp, followed by being thrown into the fire after the Mcflab fiasco.

Well Bridgewater better be way more capable of starting than Ponder was or the Vikings wasted another pick.

And Moth, I said "nearly" all of the top QBs played right away. I said nearly because I know not ALL of them did. And there are more than four good QBs in the NFL. Both Mannings did. Big Ben, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Joe Flacco, Andrew Luck, RGIII, And of course the kind of guy every team dreams of finding, Russell Wilson.

No, they're not all championship QBs. Not yet. But most of these guys are solid and all significantly better than anybody the Vikings have had - with the exception of '09 - in a long time. It's not that rare for a rookie to start right away now.

Our basic disagreement is whether or not it's beneficial for a rookie QB to stand on the sideline for a while and learn what he can before he's thrown to the wolves. While I will relent and say it probably is somewhat beneficial, I definitely don't think it's necessary.

Now you did make a great point that it can depend on the individual. And I can't argue the fact that there have been guys that have probably have been ruined by rushing them along. But I think that too is more rare these days with these college guys more pro ready than they used to be.

I just think it seems that the QBs that turn out to be really good/great are the special talents that can pretty much handle starting right away. I hope Teddy is one of those.

Mothman wrote: I didn't see the above until VikingLord quoted it but now I have to ask, why the weird dig?

Why was that somewhat obvious point was something you had to "endure". In games Ponder started alone, the defense blew 4 leads in the final minute of games. They allowed more points than other defense in the league last year. It seems self-evident that they could have won more games if the defense had played better.

lol, yeah, the defense was awful and ironically for the better part of the year we were in the top 10 as far as points scored and we finished the year 14th. In the end we only had 26 points less than Seattle did in total (417 for SEA, and 391 for MIN) so had we had their defense it's not that crazy to think they would have won a lot of games, even with Ponder at the helm.

Demi wrote: What's he going to learn sitting on the sideline? Start the man!

You mean great QB's like Rodgers, for instance?

majorm wrote:And Moth, I said "nearly" all of the top QBs played right away. I said nearly because I know not ALL of them did. And there are more than four good QBs in the NFL.

I wasn't trying to nitpick. I know you said "nearly" and I realize there are more than 4 good QBs in the NFL but few would dispute that the top QBs in the league are Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers so when I hear that phrase, those are the 4 players that come to mind. At the very least, it's at least interesting that 3 of those 4 barely played or didn't play at all as rookies.

Both Mannings did. Big Ben, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Joe Flacco, Andrew Luck, RGIII, And of course the kind of guy every team dreams of finding, Russell Wilson.

No, they're not all championship QBs. Not yet. But most of these guys are solid and all significantly better than anybody the Vikings have had - with the exception of '09 - in a long time. It's not that rare for a rookie to start right away now.

Our basic disagreement is whether or not it's beneficial for a rookie QB to stand on the sideline for a while and learn what he can before he's thrown to the wolves. While I will relent and say it probably is somewhat beneficial, I definitely don't think it's necessary.

I don't either but I do think it can be beneficial, which was all I was saying.

Now you did make a great point that it can depend on the individual. And I can't argue the fact that there have been guys that have probably have been ruined by rushing them along. But I think that too is more rare these days with these college guys more pro ready than they used to be.

I just think it seems that the QBs that turn out to be really good/great are the special talents that can pretty much handle starting right away. I hope Teddy is one of those.

Fair enough. I think it has a lot to do with the individuals, the circumstances... there's just no single formula for success. I hope Bridgewater is the type who can successful immediately too but whether he plays as a rookie or not, if he ends up being a great QB for the Vikings, I think we can both agree that would be just fine.

mondry wrote: lol, yeah, the defense was awful and ironically for the better part of the year we were in the top 10 as far as points scored and we finished the year 14th. In the end we only had 26 points less than Seattle did in total (417 for SEA, and 391 for MIN) so had we had their defense it's not that crazy to think they would have won a lot of games, even with Ponder at the helm.

Some fans like to conveniently forget about those games lost by the crappy defense

fiestavike wrote:I truly believe that Cassel can excel in this system and put up his best performance since he was in NE filling in for Tom Brady. For these reasons I would probably start Cassel this year but if he really flounders I would go to Bridgewater. .

I think people are going to have to start considering the schedule. It's brutal and not favorable for a rook QB at all.

Purple bruise wrote: Some fans like to conveniently forget about those games lost by the crappy defense

Or the fact we were 5-3 at home and winless on the road.

Mothman wrote: I didn't see the above until VikingLord quoted it but now I have to ask, why the weird dig?

Why was that somewhat obvious point was something you had to "endure". In games Ponder started alone, the defense blew 4 leads in the final minute of games. They allowed more points than other defense in the league last year. It seems self-evident that they could have won more games if the defense had played better.

The dig because you yourself clearly thought defense, not QB, was our biggest reason for losing last year, and yet now you're puzzled why we didn't take our QB instead of D at #9. Seems to me we should fill our biggest hole first in the draft.

Purple bruise wrote: Okay then. A rookie could not learn one thing from a veteren QB

I didn't say that a rookie can't learn from Veteran QBs. Just not from Vets like Cassel and Ponder. Had Norv Turner been here for season already I would say that both Cassel and Ponder have better experience with the playbook than the rookies. See the problem is that this is a new playbook for the entire team. True enough that the vets got a early head start but Bridgewater is a student of the game and will put in overtime to learn the playbook. During the offseason they can probably teach them how to break down film or learn some of the terminology of the playbook.

But the question I asked you was by Week 1. What can Bridgewater obviously learn from Ponder and Cassel that's worth sitting on the bench over? You answered back sarcastically so I'm guessing you probably don't know either. Which is okay because I doubt anyone else knows either. The only way I can see Bridgewater not starting is if he's having a hard time learning the offense in 1 year. Which I think in his case, won't be a problem at all.

Webbfann wrote:The dig because you yourself clearly thought defense, not QB, was our biggest reason for losing last year, and yet now you're puzzled why we didn't take our QB instead of D at #9. Seems to me we should fill our biggest hole first in the draft.

Well, if that's how it seems to you...

Personally, I'd say there was no bigger hole on the team going into the draft than the need to find a long term solution at QB but I don't think a team needs to draft for immediate need, or in order of biggest need.

So Teddy's going to be #1 for OTAs. He must be picking up the offense pretty quickly.

No fancy-dancy poll, Moth? I just wanted to vote to keep it short and sweet, ya know, like me...well, us.

Slick Rick wrote:So Teddy's going to be #1 for OTAs. He must be picking up the offense pretty quickly.

How do you mean? Did you read something to that effect?

frosted21 wrote: How do you mean? Did you read something to that effect?

I'm guessing he read this: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... ps-at-otas