Ponder: The Answer?

[The Breeze]

I think Cassel would be a great backup for minny. He was a backup at USC, if i'm not mistaken. This trend of taking solid backup QBs from one team and expecting them to save another as a starter is not working. Backups have a specific role and mentality. The good ones historically remain backups their whole careers. It's got to be the toughest job in all of pro sports.

cassell, Kolb, gerard...the packer guy who went to seattle last season, all giant wastes of money for guys who are system backup QBs. And there are plenty of other examples. The only guy that comes to my mind as far as going from backup to solid starter, in recent memory, is Schaub. And he is severely lacking IMO.

I like what Fraizer is saying. Your backup has a backup mentality....he's not pining to start or take the job from the starter, he's the backup...he's there to save the day when things go wrong.

For all we know, Ponder could wind up being the backup QB in a couple years. But for now they have to give him every opportunity to make good....which definitely means getting him help. I'm not sure it's nearly as important to get him the next Megatron as it is getting a couple of competent WRs with decent speed who can actually run routes like pros. I seriously can't figure how some of our wide outs even make the team in consecutive seasons.

In spite of that, I think the FO is on the right track. They brought in 3 Wrs last season and a tight end...they certainly aren't sitting on their hands about it. You can't control what happened with Childs and if he had panned out it would be a moot point. Simpson wasn't as advertised...but he was hurt and he's still better than Aromashodu and Burton....I think he still has potential, but he doesn't have much slack at all.

I'm excited for the draft and the direction of the team in general.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Cassel would make a better backup then Webb, but then, what vet wouldnt?

And we still need to find that late round QB to sit, watch and learn. I dont think the Vikes are sold on MBT. But then, I dont think the Vikes have any idea what a good QB should be. If AD gets hurt (god forbid), we wont win a game as it is now.

[Mothman]

I think Cassel would be a great backup for minny. He was a backup at USC, if i'm not mistaken. This trend of taking solid backup QBs from one team and expecting them to save another as a starter is not working. Backups have a specific role and mentality. The good ones historically remain backups their whole careers. It's got to be the toughest job in all of pro sports.

I think being a starter and actually playing most of the time is probably considerably tougher.

cassell, Kolb, gerard...the packer guy who went to seattle last season, all giant wastes of money for guys who are system backup QBs. And there are plenty of other examples. The only guy that comes to my mind as far as going from backup to solid starter, in recent memory, is Schaub. And he is severely lacking IMO.

Arron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Drew Brees all went from backup to starter as well. However, teams haven't had as much luck signing and starting backups QBs from other rosters. It happens (Hasselbeck, Favre, Gannon...) but there seem to be more misses than hits. i suppose that's true when it comes to drafting QBs too. It's just hard to find a great starter!

[The Breeze]

I think being a starter and actually playing most of the time is probably considerably tougher.

I'm not so sure that's an absolute. Look at what Joe Webb was asked to do in GB after not having played the whole season. Although, if Webb was actually established in the offense the Vikings run, he would have had fared better.

Arron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Drew Brees all went from backup to starter as well. However, teams haven't had as much luck signing and starting backups QBs from other rosters. It happens (Hasselbeck, Favre, Gannon...) but there seem to be more misses than hits. i suppose that's true when it comes to drafting QBs too. It's just hard to find a great starter!

It seems to be very hard to find starters....and you never know for certain what round they'll come out of.

I'm sure Rodgers and Brees were drafted as heir apparent QBs. Brees was there to fix the Leaf situation and Rodgers was to learn from Favre who was getting long in the tooth. They were slotted to be the future starters for their teams. I'm not sure how much Brady competed with Bledsoe for the starting job either....I would wager he competed about as much as Mallet is competing with him for the current job. Just turned out once Brady hit the field he was a better athlete and fit...ala Kapernick.

My point is that the backup QB position is unique and it might serve teams better to draft guys specifically for the position rather than bringing in "competition" for the starting job. I think of Don Strock, Danny White, Frank Reich, Steve Bono etc.

Of course that's much easier to figure when you have a legit incumbent, which the Vikings have yet to completely establish. But I like what the Patriots and Redskins have done, for example. They have bona-fide franchise QBs and they draft their backup rather than sign some past his prime or second tier vet. Cassel was a backup at SC too...and there was no way he was told that he was ever going to be anything other than the backup in NE, until Brady hangs em up. Same goes for Cousins in DC...I can't imagine Shannahan telling him that he is competing with RG3 to start. He's got to know that his job is to be ready and know the system for when things go south.

I reckon it's an ideal situation and a luxury most teams don't enjoy due to the fact that more teams are still waiting for their starter to step up. All in all, I think it's flawed to take the lesser of two starting candidates and make one the backup because he's not as good at starting. I think the smart move is to have a guy that is a good backup from the get go...or is drafted specifically with that mindset so he can develop as a backup. Unfortunately most teams are forced into the former situation due to not having a franchise guy.

[Mothman]

I'm not so sure that's an absolute. Look at what Joe Webb was asked to do in GB after not having played the whole season. Although, if Webb was actually established in the offense the Vikings run, he would have had fared better.

There's no doubt that was tough and when called upon to play, I think backup QBs face a difficult challenge so I understand the point you were making. They have to be ready to play at a moment's notice, even though they rarely play. that takes a discipline and a certain mindset. My earlier response was simply intended as a quick way to point out that they don't have anything close to the toughest job in all of pro sports. After all, how often is a backup QB's job actually more difficult than a starting QB's job? I certainly don't think it's tougher than say, a starting NHL goalie's job. It's probably positively cushy by comparison.

It seems to be very hard to find starters....and you never know for certain what round they'll come out of.

I'm sure Rodgers and Brees were drafted as heir apparent QBs. Brees was there to fix the Leaf situation and Rodgers was to learn from Favre who was getting long in the tooth. They were slotted to be the future starters for their teams.

Sure but they were backups. I didn't realize you were specifically thinking of players who were perceived as backup-level QBs from the start.

I reckon it's an ideal situation and a luxury most teams don't enjoy due to the fact that more teams are still waiting for their starter to step up. All in all, I think it's flawed to take the lesser of two starting candidates and make one the backup because he's not as good at starting. I think the smart move is to have a guy that is a good backup from the get go...or is drafted specifically with that mindset so he can develop as a backup. Unfortunately most teams are forced into the former situation due to not having a franchise guy.

That doesn't make sense to me. As long as the backup player can handle the role without being disruptive, it seems like the best approach it to have the best backup option possible. The backup is always one play away from becoming the starter so why wouldn't teams want as little drop-off as possible if the backup is called upon to play? For example, which situation sounds better: Montana gets hurt and Young steps in or Brady gets hurt and Ryan Mallett steps in? The philosophy you're describing sounds a lot like the approach the Colts took behind Peyton Manning. That didn't work out so well.

Every case is going to be a little different but in general, I think it's better to have a backup with starting-caliber talent. Look how well it paid off for the 49ers this season...

[headless_norseman]

Saw another short report on ESPN that Webb will be given the chance to win the #2 spot, most likely a free agent vet.

[headless_norseman]

Cassel would make a better backup then Webb, but then, what vet wouldnt?

And we still need to find that late round QB to sit, watch and learn. I dont think the Vikes are sold on MBT. But then, I dont think the Vikes have any idea what a good QB should be. If AD gets hurt (god forbid), we wont win a game as it is now.

Cassel wants to start - he ends up elsewhere.

[dead_poet]

Cassel wants to start - he ends up elsewhere.

...as a backup.

[headless_norseman]

...as a backup.

Agreed. He'll try and pick a situation where he could end up starting - can't think of a team off the top of my head where they would pencil him in starting for 1 season, although the Cards should, but they won't.

[The Breeze]

That doesn't make sense to me. As long as the backup player can handle the role without being disruptive, it seems like the best approach it to have the best backup option possible. The backup is always one play away from becoming the starter so why wouldn't teams want as little drop-off as possible if the backup is called upon to play? For example, which situation sounds better: Montana gets hurt and Young steps in or Brady gets hurt and Ryan Mallett steps in? The philosophy you're describing sounds a lot like the approach the Colts took behind Peyton Manning. That didn't work out so well.

Every case is going to be a little different but in general, I think it's better to have a backup with starting-caliber talent. Look how well it paid off for the 49ers this season...

I'm just saying that the second best starting talent isn't absolutely the best backup for the team. When Young stepped in, for example, the Niners ultimately had to decide between Young or Montana as Young was never comfortable as a backup to anyone, he simply couldn't handle it. The Niners had to get rid of Montana or lose Young, like the Packers with Rodgers and Favre. Not a bad thing in either case ultimately....but in each case the second guy was always slated to be the future of the franchise, not a backup who surprised everyone like Cassel, Kolb and Flynn .

No team has ever been able to keep both. Could you imagine Jay Cutler as a backup? Look at what the 49ers have as a backup now. Question is do they sign a veteran free agent to backup Kapernick or do they use one of their 12 picks to draft a young guy who will learn their system. I'd draft a guy and tell him you are the backup. Put your blinders on and learn our system. That's why we drafted you.
I'm not even convinced that Harbaugh wasn't planning on having Kapernick becoming his starter either. He drafted him. I can't even remember who drafted Smith. With the season Smith had this year, they struck gold...and now they are one play away from crap cause, for whatever reason, Smith can't be the backup.

The philosophy I'm describing is the one used by the Eagles, Pats and more recently GB and the Redskins. They are drafting young QBs and teaching them to be competent in their system behind their solid starter...the funny thing is that other teams see them as more than backup Qbs and screw themselves by going all in on them once they are free agents.

TJack and J Webb were both drafted as QBs because of their sick athletic ability, but each proved completely incapable of efficiently running an offense....why would anyone want an racy athlete who can't figure out the offense vs a slower more methodical type who actually knows it like the back of his hand, when your starter goes down?

I guess I just believe there is a difference between the starter and a backup other than how they grade out in practice as starters. Much like a starting pitcher and a quality bull pen guy. You have to be a humble smart dude to be a good backup QB in this league. I would argue that there are more legit starting guys than legit backups in the league right now, and a whole range of inadequate over matched hype between the two groups.

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong thing here...just what I would try to create if I was a GM.

[The Breeze]

I am going to have to agree with Mothman. I don't see how you can think being the back up to any position is harder than being the starter. As back up all you are doing is practicing for a whole season non stop just in case you have to go in. As a starter the game is on your shoulders. You are the starting QB of a professional team, and in most situations the face of the franchise. When something goes wrong with the offense, you are going to receive most of the blame.

I'm not talking about blame or pressure....I'm saying it's got to be the toughest job on the field that day when you walk on to play without having taken a live snap in weeks or in Webb's case all year and have to be on. Not many guys are that good at it IMO. You can't possibly be suggesting that performing in the Packer playoff game would have been more demanding for a healthy Ponder than it was for Webb.

I bet if you ask any qb in any league, "Hey man what do think? running the team on a regular basis....you know,every week take all the reps with the starters and get real a comfortable rhythm going....or just being thrown out there at random on a few days notice or the middle of the game; which one would be easier for you?" no one would say the relief appearance would be easier.

It's probably the main reason why so few guys excel at the position the way guys like Strock and White did...there doesn't seem to be a proper appreciation for it, until it's too late... and everyone wants to be a star.

[PurpleKoolaid]

...as a backup.

Yep, he pverates himself, basically because of 1 good year, and pretty much nothing else. Nut yeah, i wouldnt mind him here.

[Mothman]

I'm just saying that the second best starting talent isn't absolutely the best backup for the team. When Young stepped in, for example, the Niners ultimately had to decide between Young or Montana as Young was never comfortable as a backup to anyone, he simply couldn't handle it. The Niners had to get rid of Montana or lose Young, like the Packers with Rodgers and Favre. Not a bad thing in either case ultimately....but in each case the second guy was always slated to be the future of the franchise, not a backup who surprised everyone like Cassel, Kolb and Flynn .

No team has ever been able to keep both. Could you imagine Jay Cutler as a backup? Look at what the 49ers have as a backup now. Question is do they sign a veteran free agent to backup Kapernick or do they use one of their 12 picks to draft a young guy who will learn their system. I'd draft a guy and tell him you are the backup. Put your blinders on and learn our system. That's why we drafted you.
I'm not even convinced that Harbaugh wasn't planning on having Kapernick becoming his starter either. He drafted him. I can't even remember who drafted Smith. With the season Smith had this year, they struck gold...and now they are one play away from crap cause, for whatever reason, Smith can't be the backup.

The philosophy I'm describing is the one used by the Eagles, Pats and more recently GB and the Redskins. They are drafting young QBs and teaching them to be competent in their system behind their solid starter...the funny thing is that other teams see them as more than backup Qbs and screw themselves by going all in on them once they are free agents.

TJack and J Webb were both drafted as QBs because of their sick athletic ability, but each proved completely incapable of efficiently running an offense....why would anyone want an racy athlete who can't figure out the offense vs a slower more methodical type who actually knows it like the back of his hand, when your starter goes down?

I guess I just believe there is a difference between the starter and a backup other than how they grade out in practice as starters. Much like a starting pitcher and a quality bull pen guy. You have to be a humble smart dude to be a good backup QB in this league. I would argue that there are more legit starting guys than legit backups in the league right now, and a whole range of inadequate over matched hype between the two groups.

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong thing here...just what I would try to create if I was a GM.

I apologize for oversimplifying what you're saying but in a nutshell, it seems like what you're talking about is longevity and long-term stability at the backup QB position, a situation where the same starter and backup can remain in place for a long time, beyond the point where the backup's talent makes him too expensive to re-sign, too valuable not to trade and too much younger and talented to remain behind an aging starter. I agree that finding that sort of backup makes sense when a team has a starter locked-in for the long haul, as the Colts did for years with Manning, the Packers with Favre, the Pats have had with Brady, etc. However, I'm not really sure how you differentiate that player from a future starting talent and still come up with a QB to draft who will be good enough to help you win games if the starter goes down, especially if he's lost for an extended period of time. Frank Reich is a great example of the kind of QB you're talking about but I don't think Reich was necessarily drafted to become a career backup. I think it just worked out that way.

[The Breeze]

I apologize for oversimplifying what you're saying but in a nutshell, it seems like what you're talking about is longevity and long-term stability at the backup QB position, a situation where the same starter and backup can remain in place for a long time, beyond the point where the backup's talent makes him too expensive to re-sign, too valuable not to trade and too much younger and talented to remain behind an aging starter. I agree that finding that sort of backup makes sense when a team has a starter locked-in for the long haul, as the Colts did for years with Manning, the Packers with Favre, the Pats have had with Brady, etc. However, I'm not really sure how you differentiate that player from a future starting talent and still come up with a QB to draft who will be good enough to help you win games if the starter goes down, especially if he's lost for an extended period of time. Frank Reich is a great example of the kind of QB you're talking about but I don't think Reich was necessarily drafted to become a career backup. I think it just worked out that way.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, Jim. And I agree with you about how it happens coincidentally and how hard it is to keep a decent backup on the roster. I like the idea of trading the guy for a pick when it's time.
I think the key is the culture of the team. For example, I think Alex Smith is crazy to go and start for the Chiefs when he could stay with SF as the backup (assuming that was in any way an option). If I were in his position I'd take a pay cut to stay with that organization and be part of that culture vs going to the Chiefs just to start and flirt with .500. He's made his money, Kapernick is better...I'd wager he'll never even get close to what he was part of in SF again.

What the Ravens and 49ers have done recently (the Ravens for awhile now), winning with old school tough minded team football and fundamentally sound players is a great thing for the NFL. I really don't get teams that have DBs who play DB cause they haven't learned to catch the football. I can't get my mind around a guy who sucks at catching a football even making an NFL roster. I don't understand why you would want a QB on your team who isn't self-motivated and needs "competition" to push him in training camp. It all has the ring of "made in china" to me.

Over the last 10 years, due to the internet, I've learned so much more about the ins and outs of this game and league and it just blows me away at how completely clueless most organizations are when it comes to culture of team vs the cult of ego. I know there are a lot of personalities to manage on every team and it's not an exact science, but I really have grown to respect the Landry/Johnson Cowboys, the Walsh/Siefert niners, Ditka's Bears, the Knoll/Cohwer Steelers, the Patriots and now what both Harbaughs have put together in their locker rooms. I believe players love playing for these kinds of teams to be part of winning cultures and they make sacrifices financially and in regards to personal publicity to be part of it all.

I know this is ultimately a FO/ownership issue and the short fuse to a long rant. I just hope we've seen the last of, (and I believe we may have) the Tavaris Webbs, entire backfields of DBs who go the whole season without interceptions because the ball keeps hitting them in the hands, WRs more interested in getting fashion props than separation from defenders, mildly serious OLinemen and LBs whose real strengths are on special teams.

Not sure how I got from backup QB to here.....but there it is. Hopefully it's out of my system .

[Mothman]

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, Jim. And I agree with you about how it happens coincidentally and how hard it is to keep a decent backup on the roster. I like the idea of trading the guy for a pick when it's time.
I think the key is the culture of the team. For example, I think Alex Smith is crazy to go and start for the Chiefs when he could stay with SF as the backup (assuming that was in any way an option). If I were in his position I'd take a pay cut to stay with that organization and be part of that culture vs going to the Chiefs just to start and flirt with .500. He's made his money, Kapernick is better...I'd wager he'll never even get close to what he was part of in SF again.

What the Ravens and 49ers have done recently (the Ravens for awhile now), winning with old school tough minded team football and fundamentally sound players is a great thing for the NFL. I really don't get teams that have DBs who play DB cause they haven't learned to catch the football. I can't get my mind around a guy who sucks at catching a football even making an NFL roster. I don't understand why you would want a QB on your team who isn't self-motivated and needs "competition" to push him in training camp. It all has the ring of "made in china" to me.

Over the last 10 years, due to the internet, I've learned so much more about the ins and outs of this game and league and it just blows me away at how completely clueless most organizations are when it comes to culture of team vs the cult of ego. I know there are a lot of personalities to manage on every team and it's not an exact science, but I really have grown to respect the Landry/Johnson Cowboys, the Walsh/Siefert niners, Ditka's Bears, the Knoll/Cohwer Steelers, the Patriots and now what both Harbaughs have put together in their locker rooms. I believe players love playing for these kinds of teams to be part of winning cultures and they make sacrifices financially and in regards to personal publicity to be part of it all.

I know this is ultimately a FO/ownership issue and the short fuse to a long rant. I just hope we've seen the last of, (and I believe we may have) the Tavaris Webbs, entire backfields of DBs who go the whole season without interceptions because the ball keeps hitting them in the hands, WRs more interested in getting fashion props than separation from defenders, mildly serious OLinemen and LBs whose real strengths are on special teams.

Not sure how I got from backup QB to here.....but there it is. Hopefully it's out of my system .

LOL! I'll bet it felt good to write. It was certainly fun to read.

I agree (in a big way) with what you're saying about the importance of team culture vs. the cult of ego and I also think it's good for football to see teams like SF and Baltimore winning the way they've won the past two seasons. One of the reasons I've been very supportive of Frazier and Spielman thus far is because I feel they're trying to build the kind of team culture that wins championships. I really believe they have the right idea, although whether they can deliver remains an open question.