Do you feel Norv Turner is an upgrade over Bill Musgrave?

[Cliff]

I'm no Musgrave fan but that line about Harvin isn't accurate at all. If Musgrave struggled so mightily to find ways to use Harvin, why did Harvin catch passes at basically every level of the defense? If I recall correctly, he actually led the league in receptions for a good portion of 2012 before he was injured and not only gained significant yardage when he lined up in the backfield, but scored from that position. Short of playing QB, what didn't Musgrave ask Harvin to do?

The most productive stretch of Harvin's pro career came during his time in Musgrave's offense.

I was just thinking about Musgrave and there are times he wanted to make me pull my hair out but overall I can’t complain about him too much. Even though I wanted him to use Patterson earlier Simpson really had some great plays and good games. We had decent WRs in Jennings and Simpson and Patterson was supposed to be a “developmental” type player. Bringing rookies along slowly seemed to be the coaching staff’s mantra as well so Patterson’s delay is forgivable in my eyes.

It’s probably easy to confuse Harvin’s time on the bench due to injury with him being “under-used” if you didn’t watch all of the games and maybe just looked at season-long stats.

He also dragged the Vikings from 18th to 13th in offense with a bottom-5 QB situation (a position that many claim is the most important spot on the team and especially on offense). It’s hard for me to think Musgrave ran the 13th ranked offense for a team with a bad QB situation and is as horrible as Vikings fans make him out to be.

[dead_poet]

I was just thinking about Musgrave and there are times he wanted to make me pull my hair out but overall I can’t complain about him too much. Even though I wanted him to use Patterson earlier Simpson really had some great plays and good games. We had decent WRs in Jennings and Simpson and Patterson was supposed to be a “developmental” type player. Bringing rookies along slowly seemed to be the coaching staff’s mantra as well so Patterson’s delay is forgivable in my eyes.

It’s probably easy to confuse Harvin’s time on the bench due to injury with him being “under-used” if you didn’t watch all of the games and maybe just looked at season-long stats.

He also dragged the Vikings from 18th to 13th in offense with a bottom-5 QB situation (a position that many claim is the most important spot on the team and especially on offense). It’s hard for me to think Musgrave ran the 13th ranked offense for a team with a bad QB situation and is as horrible as Vikings fans make him out to be.

Well said.

Though, still, it's hard to imagine Turner NOT being an upgrade. It'll probably be a much more fun offense to watch from a fan perspective. And I expect Rudolph to be emphasized to a greater degree.

[Mothman]

Well said.

Though, still, it's hard to imagine Turner NOT being an upgrade. It'll probably be a much more fun offense to watch from a fan perspective. And I expect Rudolph to be emphasized to a greater degree.

I suspect Turner will be an upgrade. He's one of the better playcallers in the league but I do agree with you and Cliff. As he said, it’s hard to think Musgrave ran the 13th ranked offense for a team with a bad QB situation and is as horrible as Vikings fans make him out to be.

[mansquatch]

I suspect Turner will be an upgrade. He's one of the better playcallers in the league but I do agree with you and Cliff. As he said, it’s hard to think Musgrave ran the 13th ranked offense for a team with a bad QB situation and is as horrible as Vikings fans make him out to be.

This is where I was at. That has to be a feather in Musgrave's hat IMO. #13 with Ponder is and a not 100% Adrian Petersen is not a bad accomplishment IMO. I do agree though that I think Turner will be an upgrade, he has plenty of experience and a strong track record. Obviously the QB position will be their ceiling. I think Turner will be able to make positive use of Cassell.

August is going to be very interesting. Both sides of the ball are going to change in ways that will probably be subtle at first. I'm looking forward to see how it all plays out.

[King James]

Being ranked #13 is nice and all but none of that crap matters? Why, because we lost most of our games. We didn't make plays when game was on the line. As for not having a QB to work with, that is his fault too. Playing football before (elementary-college), I know the OC have input on who they would like on the team. He should have voiced his opinion on McNabb when he first came and voiced his opinion on Ponder. Now me personally, I think Ponder doesn't fit this offense in Minnesota. He ran a spread offense in Flordia State, this team however really likes the QB to play under center.

Ponder sucked playing under center coming out of college. This is something Billy shouldv'e brought up in the draft room. But nope they took whatever Spielman gave them. They probably didn't even tell the man, "Hey Ponder may not be worth the pick we are about to use." Or, "Hey, I don't think McNabb would adjust well to this offense."

The QB coach decided who gets the most playing time out of his group, the OC coordinator decided who is 1st, 2nd, 3rd string, and etc, and the HC makes official depth chart. From what I've known experienced, the HC doesn't make too many changes that the OC hasn't already made. If he wants to change QBs he would talk to the position coach and OC prior to actually forcing a change.

Therefore, Musgrave is therefore not only a bad playcaller but a horrible decision maker. By the grace of Peterson and a few luck games from Ponder and Cassel he managed to still have a decent offense to be competitive but still couldn't win most of our games.

[dead_poet]

Being ranked #13 is nice and all but none of that crap matters?

Well, when you're evaluating an offense and its coordinator, it kinda matters.

Why, because we lost most of our games. We didn't make plays when game was on the line.

You cannot pin the losses solely on the offense. Your last part here can almost be directed at the defense.

As for not having a QB to work with, that is his fault too. Playing football before (elementary-college), I know the OC have input on who they would like on the team. He should have voiced his opinion on McNabb when he first came and voiced his opinion on Ponder.

You're assuming he was all hunky-dory with everything. You don't know if he voiced his opinion or not. There's no guarantee the head coach (or GM, you know, the guy that's responsible for the roster) is going to listen. For all we know, he could've been incredibly against both McNabb and Ponder. He's not the final say.

Ponder sucked playing under center coming out of college. This is something Billy shouldv'e brought up in the draft room. But nope they took whatever Spielman gave them. They probably didn't even tell the man, "Hey Ponder may not be worth the pick we are about to use." Or, "Hey, I don't think McNabb would adjust well to this offense."

Again, the opinions of the coach and coordinator only go so far. I'd be pretty surprised if they had much input on draft day at all. And McNabb's "performance" was more to do about his own decline than the scheme. You can't place much blame on Ponder and McNabb at the feet of Musgrave. He works with what he's given.

The QB coach decided who gets the most playing time out of his group, the OC coordinator decided who is 1st, 2nd, 3rd string, and etc, and the HC makes official depth chart. From what I've known experienced, the HC doesn't make too many changes that the OC hasn't already made. If he wants to change QBs he would talk to the position coach and OC prior to actually forcing a change.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Though I'd be pretty surprised if the QB coach really has that much pull on QB playing time. That's a lot of responsibility given to that particular position coach. And who's to say his decision isn't influenced by his superiors?

Therefore, Musgrave is therefore not only a bad playcaller but a horrible decision maker. By the grace of Peterson and a few luck games from Ponder and Cassel he managed to still have a decent offense to be competitive but still couldn't win most of our games.

You seem to love placing blame here when we had near historically bad defense. Our offense was able to somehow keep pace with opposing teams scoring at will. That's a feather in the cap of the offense, and the guys running that show. If they were as incompetent as you assert, how did they manage to field an offense that was largely more efficient that half the league? And what, then, does that say about the coaches, quarterbacks and coordinators of the offenses that finished behind the Vikings?

You also do a bit of a disservice by pinning good games on Ponder by "luck." Frankly, that's absurd. It's due primarily to preparation and execution. How do you distinguish "good" plays from "lucky" plays? "Good" games from "lucky" games? Just admit that while Ponder was incredibly inconsistent and sub-par as a starter, he had some good plays/moments/games.

[King James]

You cannot pin the losses solely on the offense. Your last part here can almost be directed at the defense.

I am not pinning every loss soley on the offense. I'm simply saying that being ranked #13 means nothing if we couldn't execute when we needed to. How many times have we seen our defense get gashed because of the offense's inability to move the chains on 3rd down. How many times have we blew 2 minute drills due to poor time/ball management.

You're assuming he was all hunky-dory with everything. You don't know if he voiced his opinion or not. There's no guarantee the head coach (or GM, you know, the guy that's responsible for the roster) is going to listen. For all we know, he could've been incredibly against both McNabb and Ponder. He's not the final say.

I made this comment because many people here are assuming that Spielman made these decisions without taking the coaches suggestions into consideration. I've heard of reports of Spielman not being to high on McNabb but signed him because Frazier was really high on McNabb. I could be wrong but that's the choice I'm sticking with. You always heard reports about Frazier and Spielman making certain decisions but nothing of the coodinators. They seem to just work with what they have and don't complain.

Again, the opinions of the coach and coordinator only go so far. I'd be pretty surprised if they had much input on draft day at all. And McNabb's "performance" was more to do about his own decline than the scheme. You can't place much blame on Ponder and McNabb at the feet of Musgrave. He works with what he's given.

Again back to the previous post. He is not the sole blame but he deserves some.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Though I'd be pretty surprised if the QB coach really has that much pull on QB playing time. That's a lot of responsibility given to that particular position coach. And who's to say his decision isn't influenced by his superiors?

Position coaches play a great part in playing time, in other positions. QB is tough because usually the HC has decided who the QB is going to be. But the QB coach knows more about the QB than the head coach does because has too much on his plate to focus on other position. Same with the coordinator. I think our QB coach should have seen that Sage Roesenfels in 2012 should have stayed over Joe Webb and MBT. I know he can't make roster decisions but when a position coach speaks up for a player, he has a better chance of staying on the team.

You seem to love placing blame here when we had near historically bad defense. Our offense was able to somehow keep pace with opposing teams scoring at will. That's a feather in the cap of the offense, and the guys running that show. If they were as incompetent as you assert, how did they manage to field an offense that was largely more efficient that half the league? And what, then, does that say about the coaches, quarterbacks and coordinators of the offenses that finished behind the Vikings?

That they were still able to get more wins than us with the exception of 7 teams. I care about wins, not stats, but wins. Those stats mean nothing if you can't get to the super bowl. It only looks good on those guys resumes.

You also do a bit of a disservice by pinning good games on Ponder by "luck." Frankly, that's absurd. It's due primarily to preparation and execution. How do you distinguish "good" plays from "lucky" plays? "Good" games from "lucky" games? Just admit that while Ponder was incredibly inconsistent and sub-par as a starter, he had some good plays/moments/games.

No it's luck. Now Tarvaris Jackson was incredibly inconsistent but had some good games especially in 2007. Every game Ponder has won, we won barely. It's not like he took command of the offense and put the team on his back. Nope, it took some great runs by Peterson and miracle deep passes from Ponder to win.

[mondry]

We were 15th in points scored btw, not 13th.

But, as usual, I don't look at Musgrave in absolutes. There were times he called great plays, the offense looked great, and the offense WAS great. However, other times the play calling didn't make a lot of sense, the game plan seemed limited, he often got fairly predictable, and there were certain situations I feel Musgrave could have put his guys in a better chance to succeed, namely late in games.

I think Norv can give us more consistency

[dead_poet]

I am not pinning every loss soley on the offense. I'm simply saying that being ranked #13 means nothing if we couldn't execute when we needed to.

Execute as a team. And, again, it does mean something if we're attempting to evaluate an offense and coordinator.

How many times have we seen our defense get gashed because of the offense's inability to move the chains on 3rd down. How many times have we blew 2 minute drills due to poor time/ball management.

How many times have we seen our defense get gashed because of their own inability to get off the field on third down or fail to make a play? How many times have we blown a lead going into the last two minutes of game? It was borderline comedic this last season. And are you seriously attributing the number of touchdowns Chris Cook gives up or receptions Josh Robinson allows to the offense? That's a tough pill to swallow. I'm not saying that the offense's three-and-outs do not affect the defense, but you can't place the majority of the defense's ineptitude on the offense. If we're going to evaluate both sides, it's tough for me to give the defense a better grade than the offense this season.

I made this comment because many people here are assuming that Spielman made these decisions without taking the coaches suggestions into consideration. I've heard of reports of Spielman not being to high on McNabb but signed him because Frazier was really high on McNabb. I could be wrong but that's the choice I'm sticking with. You always heard reports about Frazier and Spielman making certain decisions but nothing of the coodinators. They seem to just work with what they have and don't complain.

I'm sure they have opinions and voice their concerns, but I don't know how much "complaining" I'd do to my superiors about the hand I'm dealt. If I'm OC, I voice my opinions and try to make due with what I've been given to the best of my ability. Complaining about the talent seems to be a great way to get in a GM's doghouse as you're essentially questioning his competency/job performance while coming off as a guy that doesn't think he can do the job. I've also heard the report about Frazier wanting McNabb, but I don't know how valid it is. Maybe Spielman was in complete agreement. Maybe Spielman approached Frazier with the possibility. Either way, Frazier didn't have to twist Spielman's arm. And the fault of the McNabb fiasco (like with Freeman) rests with Spielman.

Again back to the previous post. He is not the sole blame but he deserves some.

I suppose. Would a better OC have been able to get more out of McNabb? I guess it's possible. Though I'm guessing not much more. It was clear McNabb shouldn't have been starting for a team. A new OC would've been able to coach McNabb not to throw the ball at receivers' feet? Maybe that was Musgrave's direction.

That they were still able to get more wins than us with the exception of 7 teams. I care about wins, not stats, but wins. Those stats mean nothing if you can't get to the super bowl. It only looks good on those guys resumes.

Again, it's a team sport. The team didn't get the job done. Which is why most of the old coaching staff is either gone or headed that way. Stats are needed in the evaluation process. You can't simply place wins and losses on Musgrave. I hope you'd agree with that. Then you have to look deeper to see how he performed, relative to other teams. 13th in offensive yards/game, 14th in points/game (.4 out of 12th place), 13th in yards/play, 4th best in offensive penalties sustained, T-11 in touchdowns, 8th in rushing yards, 2nd in yards/rush, #1 in rushing TDs, 4th in rushes 20+ yards. This is on the back of helping AD rush to one of the best seasons ever for a running back. We can debate all day long how much of that is attributed to Musgrave, Peterson, his blockers, Frazier, etc. But the fact remains that Musgrave was the offensive coordinator during that run, so he gets some credit for Peterson's historic season.

Every game Ponder has won, we won barely. It's not like he took command of the offense and put the team on his back. Nope, it took some great runs by Peterson and miracle deep passes from Ponder to win.

An interesting hypothesis. Let's check the facts. In every game the Vikings won that Ponder was the QB, the team won by the following margins: 3, 7, 3, 11, 7, 23, 7, 10, 7, 14, 17, 3, 7, 3. That's 10/14 games won by 7 or more points. It does not appear that the facts support your conclusion. Though, I suppose it matters what you define as "barely won." He averaged a completion % of greater than 60% with a 14:6 TD:INT ratio during those wins.

Again, I'd prefer never to see Ponder start for us again, but I'm not blind to the fact that he should receive some credit for contributing to some of those wins.

[Just Me]

An interesting hypothesis. Let's check the facts. In every game the Vikings won that Ponder was the QB, the team won by the following margins: 3, 7, 3, 11, 7, 23, 7, 10, 7, 14, 17, 3, 7, 3. That's 10/14 games won by 7 or more points. It does not appear that the facts support your conclusion. Though, I suppose it matters what you define as "barely won." He averaged a completion % of greater than 60% with a 14:6 TD:INT ratio during those wins.

Again, I'd prefer never to see Ponder start for us again, but I'm not blind to the fact that he should receive some credit for contributing to some of those wins.

This is true, and I fail to see why that is so hard to acknowledge for some. Look at Ponder's stats to see the correlation. He actually played better in his second year (stat-wise) than this year. Yes, acknowledge that Peterson had a "monster year" but remember Peterson was basically "non-existent" (in Adrian Peterson Standards) during the first few games as the team was trying to "ease him back" from his injury, slowly. In fact when we were "sucking" this year, Peterson was actually ahead of his rushing totals for the same number of games last year (early in the season). What changed? Ponder was playing demonstrably worse than he was in 2012. I'm glad Ponder is done (or I hope, anyway) and do not want him back as a starter. It just seems that PDS (Ponder Derangement Syndrome) runs rampant at times. I do understand this illness as I still suffer from JDS (Jackson Derangement Syndrome) occasionally even now, but I am seeking help

[mansquatch]

IMO, the QB change is going to have the biggest impact on the offense. I'm not sure that when we talk about this in January 2015 it will be very easy to determine how much of the change in productivity was due to Turner over Musgrave vs. the starting QB.

I think Turner is an upgrade if only for his experience.

[Mothman]

I'm sure they have opinions and voice their concerns, but I don't know how much "complaining" I'd do to my superiors about the hand I'm dealt.

... and even if you were going to complain, it wouldn't make much sense to do so publicly.

[Mothman]

This is true, and I fail to see why that is so hard to acknowledge for some. Look at Ponder's stats to see the correlation. He actually played better in his second year (stat-wise) than this year. Yes, acknowledge that Peterson had a "monster year" but remember Peterson was basically "non-existent" (in Adrian Peterson Standards) during the first few games as the team was trying to "ease him back" from his injury, slowly. In fact when we were "sucking" this year, Peterson was actually ahead of his rushing totals for the same number of games last year (early in the season). What changed? Ponder was playing demonstrably worse than he was in 2012. I'm glad Ponder is done (or I hope, anyway) and do not want him back as a starter. It just seems that PDS (Ponder Derangement Syndrome) runs rampant at times. I do understand this illness as I still suffer from JDS (Jackson Derangement Syndrome) occasionally even now, but I am seeking help

"Ponder Derangement Syndrome" is the perfect way to describe it.

[Delaqure]

This is true, and I fail to see why that is so hard to acknowledge for some. Look at Ponder's stats to see the correlation. He actually played better in his second year (stat-wise) than this year. Yes, acknowledge that Peterson had a "monster year" but remember Peterson was basically "non-existent" (in Adrian Peterson Standards) during the first few games as the team was trying to "ease him back" from his injury, slowly. In fact when we were "sucking" this year, Peterson was actually ahead of his rushing totals for the same number of games last year (early in the season). What changed? Ponder was playing demonstrably worse than he was in 2012. I'm glad Ponder is done (or I hope, anyway) and do not want him back as a starter. It just seems that PDS (Ponder Derangement Syndrome) runs rampant at times. I do understand this illness as I still suffer from JDS (Jackson Derangement Syndrome) occasionally even now, but I am seeking help

And he wasn't all that great in his second year. It's easy to point to points scored and by how much we won by etc. But you have to wonder if Ponder played better, just how much better this team would have been. His stats were pretty crappy and his decision making even worse. So if he had played better, just how many wins might we have had?
We'll never really know for sure, but if you take the NFL as a whole you can get a better picture. A better QB brings more wins. It is a simple fact. So with his regression this year it just hurt our team. Sometimes teams just need a QB to carry the team to a win or three. Ponder just couldn't do it.

As far as Turner is concerned I think he will do a better job of developing players and I also think he will do a better job of working out schemes that are not as predictable and so easily defended. But again better QB play will be necessary. Hopefully he can get that out of our guys whoever they are. From what I have seen I have more hope for that from him than I did from Musgrave.