Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Whats makes you think hes coming along well? Because hes a good 'game manager'? Thats what they called Tjoke too. I havent really seen alot from Ponder to change my mind about him. It will take more then a couple PI calls, and a nice leaping catch by Simpson. But at least he hasnt thrown that sideline INT recently, or fumbled.

Becauase I'm looking at all 4 of his games and not just his last one (which I think everyone would agree was probably his "weakest" against a team that he may be a little "gunshy" against.) You didn't think his performance against SF showed promise? What about his comebacks (1 successful, 1 the defense gave up the score after Ponder tied it)? What about the fact that if he loses every game from this point forward, he will be as successful (in terms of wins) as he was last year? I didn't say he was the next coming of John Elway, I said he was improving. I thought that was almost self-evident...

I think Ponder is coming along well with his improvement, but I could actually see him having a VERY BAD day against that defense. They are fun/scary to watch.[/quote]

Whats makes you think hes coming along well? Because hes a good 'game manager'? Thats what they called Tjoke too. I havent really seen alot from Ponder to change my mind about him. It will take more then a couple PI calls, and a nice leaping catch by Simpson. But at least he hasnt thrown that sideline INT recently, or fumbled.[/quote]

Becauase I'm looking at all 4 of his games and not just his last one (which I think everyone would agree was probably his "weakest" against a team that he may be a little "gunshy" against.) You didn't think his performance against SF showed promise? What about his comebacks (1 successful, 1 the defense gave up the score after Ponder tied it)? What about the fact that if he loses every game from this point forward, he will be as successful (in terms of wins) as he was last year? I didn't say he was the next coming of John Elway, I said he was improving. I thought that was almost self-evident... [/quote]

Well PH is certainly making him look good this year (I actually heard someone say Ponder was making PH look good, my sides still hurt from that one). Other then that, I really dont see how he is improving enough to say hes coming along well. He, like Tjoke, is managing games well. And at this point thats all we need. But I had hoped for more. I sill dont like the fact hes staring down every receiver every single pass play (or keeps throwing to a spot), that he cant make reads, that he doesnt audable out when theres 50 guys in the box to stop AD and he still hands it off for a run on first down, etc. I guess I would say hes adaquate right now. The D on the other hand, is actually improving, and thats good to see, esp. having a new DC. Hard hitting safties make me smile.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:I think Ponder is coming along well with his improvement, but I could actually see him having a VERY BAD day against that defense. They are fun/scary to watch.

Whats makes you think hes coming along well? Because hes a good 'game manager'? Thats what they called Tjoke too. I havent really seen alot from Ponder to change my mind about him. It will take more then a couple PI calls, and a nice leaping catch by Simpson. But at least he hasnt thrown that sideline INT recently, or fumbled.[/quote]

Becauase I'm looking at all 4 of his games and not just his last one (which I think everyone would agree was probably his "weakest" against a team that he may be a little "gunshy" against.) You didn't think his performance against SF showed promise? What about his comebacks (1 successful, 1 the defense gave up the score after Ponder tied it)? What about the fact that if he loses every game from this point forward, he will be as successful (in terms of wins) as he was last year? I didn't say he was the next coming of John Elway, I said he was improving. I thought that was almost self-evident... [/quote]

Well PH is certainly making him look good this year (I actually heard someone say Ponder was making PH look good, my sides still hurt from that one). Other then that, I really dont see how he is improving enough to say hes coming along well. He, like Tjoke, is managing games well. And at this point thats all we need. But I had hoped for more. I sill dont like the fact hes staring down every receiver every single pass play (or keeps throwing to a spot), that he cant make reads, that he doesnt audable out when theres 50 guys in the box to stop AD and he still hands it off for a run on first down, etc. I guess I would say hes adaquate right now. The D on the other hand, is actually improving, and thats good to see, esp. having a new DC. Hard hitting safties make me smile.[/quote]


I guess I dont Understand your argument? I do not see any similarities to Tjack. For one Ponder is Markedly better than last year. I dont remember an stretch in the TJ era that he went 4 games and looked dramatically better than previously. Secondly. Ponder has shown an ability to recognize schemes and coverages shown by his audible calling in the... want to say 49ers game? I dont ever remember TJ calling those or even showing an understanding of where pressure and coverage was. Further I see ponder developing a sense of when not to force it, with his throw aways and such. Really the only similarities I see are calling both game managers which I havent really heard ponder even called.

Slainte

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Well PH is certainly making him look good this year (I actually heard someone say Ponder was making PH look good, my sides still hurt from that one). Other then that, I really dont see how he is improving enough to say hes coming along well. He, like Tjoke, is managing games well.

Jackson didn't manage games well in my opinion. Jackson never broke 300 yards passing while wearing a Viking uniform. Ponder did it in his 7th game (as a Rookie without a proper off-season) Ponder is already 'head and shoulders' above Jackson. Now granted, the comparison is against Jackson, so that still doesn't mean Ponder will mature into a good quarterback.

I think the real difference between Tarvaris Jackson and Ponder was that Jackson hit a wall and couldn't figure out how to get past it. Ponder hit that wall, figured it out, hit another one, and figured that one out. Ponder probably still has some growing to do and most likely will succeed at it. I think the number of walls that he has vs. Jackson (or another quarterback that was compared heavily to him when he was drafted, Jake Locker) is lower. I think there's a lower ceiling, but he's the type of quarterback that can make it TO that ceiling (that many quarterbacks never come close to reaching).

This Vikings team isn't flashy at all but it just works. It controls possession, grinds the clock, and does enough to make it very difficult for the other team to score more points. It's really what Chiliball was supposed to be but wasn't.

Just Me wrote: I think Ponder is coming along well with his improvement, but I could actually see him having a VERY BAD day against that defense. They are fun/scary to watch.

Didn't Tannehill throw 400+ yards on the Cards last weekend?

Vikings only average 22 points a game. Offense still
looks a little anemic.

Just Me wrote: Jackson didn't manage games well in my opinion. Jackson never broke 300 yards passing while wearing a Viking uniform. Ponder did it in his 7th game (as a Rookie without a proper off-season) Ponder is already 'head and shoulders' above Jackson. Now granted, the comparison is against Jackson, so that still doesn't mean Ponder will mature into a good quarterback.

Jackson had two 300 yard games, if I am not mistaken. But I do agree that he never seemed to be a game manager. He always seemed very lost and confused.

PurpleMustReign wrote: Jackson had two 300 yard games, if I am not mistaken. But I do agree that he never seemed to be a game manager. He always seemed very lost and confused.

You are correct, but those were with Seattle (IIRC), some 5 years after he was in the league.

Viva la Vikings wrote:
Didn't Tannehill throw 400+ yards on the Cards last weekend?

431 yards to be exact, but I was talking about the Bears defense

hibbingviking wrote:Vikings only average 22 points a game. Offense still
looks a little anemic.

Going into Week 5, the top 14 out of 32 defenses in the NFL gave up 21 or fewer points a game on average. We are ranked 7th at 18 P/G. I would certainly like to see us score more points, but to your point, as long as the defense keeps playing at this level our offense is doing enough to win games.

Not committing turnovers is a big deal, that is how the lowly KC Chiefs prevented the vaunted 2011 Packers from going 16-0.

mansquatch wrote: Going into Week 5, the top 14 out of 32 defenses in the NFL gave up 21 or fewer points a game on average. We are ranked 7th at 18 P/G. I would certainly like to see us score more points, but to your point, as long as the defense keeps playing at this level our offense is doing enough to win games.

Not committing turnovers is a big deal, that is how the lowly KC Chiefs prevented the vaunted 2011 Packers from going 16-0.

Well said.

At 22 points a game, the Vikes are ranked in the middle of the league. There are 7 teams averaging less than 20 points per game!

GBFavreFan wrote: I was afraid my analogy wouldn't be clear. You're focusing on the entire performances over two seasons, I'm focusing on the perception of those teams in the December that lead into those playoff runs. Previous season records are irrelevant to my analogy. It's a style of play I'm referring to, not a success story of one season to the next.

And other posters just seem to be responding to the subject line and not reading the actual post since I'm not predicting a Super Bowl win or that we are even a SB caliber team. If anything its a matter of mis-timing since its only October and playing like a "hot playoff team" might not matter if its not January.

No, your analogy is perfectly clear. It simply makes no sense.

And why are previous season records "irrelevant"? Because you say so? Gosh, forgive me ... I didn't know we'd changed the definition of irrelevant to any opinion that differs from yours. But hey, since my opinion is irrelevant, you won't mind if I expand on it. Previous record makes ALL the difference. You act as though the Pittsburgh Steelers somehow "came out of nowhere" to make some kind of improbable Super Bowl run. I'm saying they were freaking 15-1 the previous season, meaning they were already a damn good football team.

This team is playing nothing like the Giants of last year or 2007, or the Steelers, or any of those teams. They're playing better than we've seen from the Vikings in quite some time, but not close to a playoff level. Not in style of play, not in anything.

You asked for an opinion, and I gave you one ... irrelevant as it may be.

Maybe in two or three years from now...

with solid drafts and a few key free agents maybe

I do think we have an outside chance at a wildcard this year

3 wins to a wild card or close is good enough for me

808vikingsfan wrote:
Agree. The difference between 2011 vs 2012 is their defense. Comparing the first 4 games, the Vikings gave up 80 points in the 2nd half last year. So far this year, only 36. They actually shutout the 49ers in the 4th. When was the last time the Vikings actually shutout a team in the 4th?

Last year Oakland