Texas Vike wrote:So, Jim, you think Frazier's sticking with Ponder over Cassel has been an intelligent decision?
I think it has been an
understandable decision. It depends on how it's viewed. Frazier took over a rebuilding project and Ponder was placed at the center of it. Whether that's because Spielman said "here's the guy we want you to develop as our QB" or whether he and Frazier made the choice together, Ponder was the QB they committed to develop and Spielman repeatedly said it would take 3 seasons to make their assessment. Again, I don't know know to what extent Frazier bought into that and to what extent he may have been asked to stick to it but Ponder was the younger QB, Ponder was the guy they definitely had under contract going forward and Ponder was the player they had invested so much time and energy in. Cassel signed a short contract, he can opt out of it, and is a 31 year old journeyman QB. I get the argument that he may have given them a better chance to win immediately but in keeping with the rebuilding effort, I think Frazier was taking the long view and trying to develop Ponder, trying to work him through the problems in his game and I think that's an understandable decision.
As I wrote earlier this morning, the "script" this season has played out more or less the same whether Cassel or Ponder was in at QB. With Ponder at QB, they were in position to win games with late 4th quarter leads against Chicago, Cleveland, Green Bay and Dallas and they came up short. The same thing happened with Cassel at QB yesterday. The Pittsburgh game and the home game against the Bears played out in similar fashion but against the Steelers, the defense held in the final minute and against the Bears, Gould missed the OT field goal that would have won it and that opened the door for a win. Both QBs were on the wrong end of blowout losses too.
Cassel sees the field better than Ponder and he's more accurate but I think Frazier was trying to develop the long term answer rather than going with the short term "solution" and that's an understandable, if controversial, choice. For all the criticism Ponder receives (much of it well-deserved) he's still posted two of the three highest QB ratings the Vikes have this year. His completion percentage is higher than Cassel's and there's not a big disparity in their average yards per attempt. At this point in their respective careers, Cassel is the superior QB. His skills are more refined but I don't think the disparity between the two players is so significant that playing Ponder serves as the condemnation of Frazier's judgment that many make it out be,. At this point, that probably puts me in a minority of one but that's how I see it.
They were trying to build Ponder into the better of the two QBs because, if they could, he offered them more in the future. Unfortunately, he just hasn't shown the necessary progress and consistency in his development.
Also, when Rhodes FINALLY got into the starting lineup he looked the part immediately. He was very obviously superior to Robinson IMO.
Rhodes has played significant minutes all season. I didn't see any transformation in his game related to making him the starter. To me, it looks like he has gradually improved. I have no idea if limiting his role earlier helped in that development or not but I can see how it might have helped. Either way, it's a coaching call I'm not qualified to make and I definitely don't see it as a clear cut mistake. The coaches took the path they thought would serve him best and we can see the improvement in his game. The same is true for Patterson. Maybe they actually deserve some
credit for that. We don't know if taking a different path and thrusting more responsibility on the shoulders of rookies would have yielded different and/or better results. I'm perfectly willing to concede the possibility that the team could have been better off if those two players had been installed as starters on day one but I think we have to at least acknowledge the possibility that experienced coaches may have made the right call in their approach to developing those young players.
It's ALL debatable, from scheme to personnel management and my point isn't really to defend Frazier and say that he was right but rather to say I see no definitive way to say he made the wrong choices with some of these moves.
