Vikings Message Board.Com

mansquatch wrote:So lets switch the focus from QB to Frasier. He has something of a history on this front:

Brought McNabb because he "believed" in him. Result was Failure.

Started Fusco over Schwartz, causing Schwartz to leave. Result: So far this year looking good, but not stellar.

Starting Robinson over Rhodes: Results so far are not good

Starting Mitchell over Bishop: I'll call this one a push mosly due to lack of info.

Starting Ponder: This one is probably not 100% settled (but has to be close), but you have to ask what they have seen in practice week in and week out.

I will gladly submit that the coaches/scouts/GM know a heck of a lot more about football than I do, but it seems obvious that there should be some kind of time table on wheb=n a guy is "learning" vs when he is just hurting the team. It also begs the question of whether they are helping or hurting the guy they are not playing while they wait for the "learner" to get it together.

I wonder if Bishop gives us a better group of LB that Mitchell, that is nebulous at this point. I can't fathom that Rhodes as starting CB would somehow make us worse that Robinson, the opposite seems likely. Also one has to ask if Everson's Griffith's playing time will factor into whether or not they resign the youngest of our 3 excellent pass rushers.

This is where I go back to stubborn coaches. They won't make a change for some dumb reason because the players are "their guys". The successful coaches are the ones who make changes (Bellicheck staying with Brady rather than Bledsoe, Harbaugh playing Kaepernick rather than Smith, even Carrol playing Russell rahter than the highly paid Flynn). I just don't understand why some coaches won't make a change. Christian Ponder is not a good QB, everyone can see it, apparently except for Frasier.

I don't think its an issue of him not seeing it. I think it is an issue where he genuinely beleives Ponder will get better. One thing we as fans tend to overlook is that a lot of NFL greats do not start out great. They work to get there. My guess is Frasier sees the work and believes the results will come. For whatever reason, for some guys the practice field doesn't translate to Sunday.

To me the challenge is that at some point a Coach has to say "time to move on". This is where I wonder if Frasier has an issue. We've seen it enough in his time here that the incidents are not just wierd situations. The other question is whether or not this hurts the team both in terms of W/L, but also with player retention.

Please note this is just speculation, albeit based on observation. Impossible to know what Frasier thinks.

mansquatch wrote:I don't think its an issue of him not seeing it. I think it is an issue where he genuinely beleives Ponder will get better. One thing we as fans tend to overlook is that a lot of NFL greats do not start out great. They work to get there. My guess is Frasier sees the work and believes the results will come. For whatever reason, for some guys the practice field doesn't translate to Sunday.

To me the challenge is that at some point a Coach has to say "time to move on". This is where I wonder if Frasier has an issue. We've seen it enough in his time here that the incidents are not just wierd situations. The other question is whether or not this hurts the team both in terms of W/L, but also with player retention.

I think the biggest question is when is the right time to move on? Fans tend to be impatient. Frazier did move on from McNabb. He clearly made a choice to develop Fusco last year and it seems to be paying dividends. Fusco's not stellar but Schwartz doesn't set a stellar standard anyway. He's a pretty average guard. We'll see how the Robinson situation turns out but I doubt Robinson is getting preferential treatment because he's one of Frazier's guys (a designation that seems to be earned by nothing more than fan desire to see a player benched) and I doubt Robinson will start much longer if he doesn't show improvement. Frazier knew he might have to take his lumps while Robinson learned to play in the slot and he seems willing to take them. We can debate whether his approach to developing young players is the best approach but as you said, great players don't always start out great. The same can be true for good solid players. The transition from college player to quality pro usually takes some time and it can be rough. There are going to be failures along the way and players who just never cut it but there's only one way to find out if they have the right stuff. when is the right time to pull the plug and give up on a player?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Freeman. IF Frazier objected to the move, it might simply be that he had reservations about what bringing a "name" player into the mix at this point in the season would do to his team. It could ultimately help them but it could also be disruptive and destructive. I agree with the move to sign Freeman but from Frazier's POV, this is a QB who wasn't around when they were installing the offense, has no familiarity with his teammates, etc. IF Frazier had an objection at all it may have had nothing to do with being protective of "his guys" and everything to do with the difficulty of shifting gears to utilize a new QB while also trying to help his team dig out of a 1-3 hole.

On the other hand, it could be that he was being protective of Ponder and Cassel. We don't know and we only have Shaun King's word that Frazier had any issue with the acquisition of Freeman at all. Shaun King...

An interesting stat I just came across, that is likely now meaningless:

Christian Ponder has attempted the fifth-most passes of >20 yards per game (5.3), behind only Big Ben, Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees.
http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/sto ... onsistency

The conclusion I draw? Bill Musgrave has been dialing up more deep passes to take advantage of Jennings/Simpson's one-on-one coverage now that Harvin is gone. I think it also shows that Ponder's meek YPA last season was more a schematic/design thing than an ability thing or that he was a checkdown machine. I'm sure some might disagree.

Jim,

I'm just pointing out a trend. McNabb was benched in something like week 6 or 7 IIRMC. There was also considerable thought at the time that if Ponder had been in there just running around we probably would have won a few of those games. The point isn't the wins, but the fact it took 7 weeks to put in the "new guy".

To bring this into current context consider this question: If Ponder had not hurt his rib would Frasier have started Cassel in London? While no one but Frasier knows for sure, I think one could conjecture with very strong confidence that the answer is No. After seeing Cassel play it does beg the question a bit about waiting vs winning.

The issue with Robinson is there is no evidence we (the fans) have seen that Rhodes is materialy worse. One could argue we haven't seen evidence he is better either. But given how bad Robinson has been there is certainly at least reason to wonder if his being out there is hurting the team while a 1st round pick who seems better suited to play outside sits on the bench. Is this hurting or helping?

Overall if Robinson pans out, great for us, but that really isn't the point I'm getting at. The bigger question is does Frasier wait too long? At some point winning games needs to have a priority. How do veterans take it when they see a solid roster, but have to take lumps because the HC wants a guy to learn on the job when there is talent behind him that really seems better in the short run? Does this hurt or help the team? I get the long term vs. short term thing, but there is also such a thing as a Superbowl Window and taking the lumps on a guy learning seems to be antithetical to that concept at some point. (Not arguing Vikes are in a window BTW)

mansquatch wrote:I'm just pointing out a trend. McNabb was benched in something like week 6 or 7 IIRMC. There was also considerable thought at the time that if Ponder had been in there just running around we probably would have won a few of those games. The point isn't the wins, but the fact it took 7 weeks to put in the "new guy".

I understand, I just don't see it as a trend. To me, the whole "Frazier's guys" theory strikes me as essentially a fan creation to explain why Frazier doesn't make the decisions they think he should make and make them on their timetable. I remember the whole McNabb/Ponder situation well. There were two lines of thinking on it. One was that McNabb should have been benched earlier for Ponder. The other was that they wanted to give Ponder more time before throwing him into the fire. In the end, who was right? It's impossible to say. They didn't win a whole lot more after putting Ponder in than they did before and he definitely struggled. It's even possible that being asked to to do much too soon hurt his development but there's no way to know.

To bring this into current context consider this question: If Ponder had not hurt his rib would Frasier have started Cassel in London? While no one but Frasier knows for sure, I think one could conjecture with very strong confidence that the answer is No. After seeing Cassel play it does beg the question a bit about waiting vs winning.

Sure, but Cassel wasn't the only variable in that game so you can just as easily wonder if they would have won it with Ponder. They were in position to win the two previous games with Ponder at QB and the defense blew leads in the final minute. Did they win because they started Cassel or because they played the weakest team on their schedule so far and the defense finally came up with the late stop they'd been been needing for 3 weeks? We can all spin it as we like because there's no definitive answer. Did Frazier wait too long to start Cassel or did Cassel benefit from getting his first start against a team that can't force a turnover and can barely sack the QB?

The issue with Robinson is there is no evidence we (the fans) have seen that Rhodes is materialy worse. One could argue we haven't seen evidence he is better either. But given how bad Robinson has been there is certainly at least reason to wonder if his being out there is hurting the team while a 1st round pick who seems better suited to play outside sits on the bench. Is this hurting or helping?

I'd argue that it's hurting at the moment but that's probably not Frazier's only consideration. He's also trying to bring Rhodes along in the way he believes will be best for Rhodes and develop Robinson in the difficult slot corner position. Again, this boils down to what fans think should happen vs. what Frazier thinks is best for the players and the team, perhaps in the long run and not just right now. I think Rhodes should be starting over Robinson but I don't know if that's the right call and I don't see any substantial connection between that situation, McNabb/Ponder, Ponder/Cassel, etc. The trend I see is fans coming up with an explanation (these are "Frazier's guys" to explain why the coach isn't doing things the way they want them done, when they want them done.

Overall if Robinson pans out, great for us, but that really isn't the point I'm getting at. The bigger question is does Frasier wait too long?

That's a reasonable question and I think the honest answer is:we don't know. I don't think any of the examples you listed a few posts above have a definitive answer.

At some point winning games needs to have a priority. How do veterans take it when they see a solid roster, but have to take lumps because the HC wants a guy to learn on the job when there is talent behind him that really seems better in the short run? Does this hurt or help the team?

I don't know. It's probably a little of both, depending on how each situation gets resolved. A coach certainly can't be expected to make the best call every time. Nobody does and more to the point, the right call isn't always clear, sometimes even with the benefit of hindsight.

I get the long term vs. short term thing, but there is also such a thing as a Superbowl Window and taking the lumps on a guy learning seems to be antithetical to that concept at some point. (Not arguing Vikes are in a window BTW)

At some point, it is antithetical but at no point during the Frazier era have the Vikes been in a realistic Super Bowl window., which suggests that perhaps this is exactly the right time to take their lumps while developing players. After all, this is a rebuilding team and 10 wins last year didn't change that.