Vikings Message Board.Com

GBFavreFan wrote:It's interesting to see what conclusions people come up with from the same data, however Jim failed to come up with any conclusions of his own, he just said mine weren't right without adding any statistical information that might actually enhance the conversation, only to say "you're wrong you're generalizing".

I didn't say you were wrong. I said the statistical evidence you provided was insufficient to support some of the conclusions you drew. That's not the same thing. In fact, some of the conclusions you drew may be right on target. That's why, as I said to MV711, it wasn't about a difference of opinion.

Mansquatch phrased it very well above;

Consider that the criticism Jim made wasn't so much that you are wrong, but that one could just as easily reach completely different conclusions from your Data. That in of itself questions all of the conclusions made from the data. However, do not lose sight of that fact that you provided data that created conversation and given that it is May in the NFL season that is all we really have to disucss, so in that sense I say Bravo!

All of that is right on target, including the part about your post helping to generate interesting discussion during these dog days of the offseason. When I said earlier in the thread that I appreciated the stats and the effort you put into providing them, I meant it. If I didn't feel it was worth discussing football with you at all, I wouldn't reply to your posts but I feel you have some interesting things to say and it would be nice if we could discuss this stuff.

This didn't take a lot of time for me, other than to pull these stats and write down a conclusion from that stat and guess what the meaning behind it is. Do you hear detectives complain they can't solve a case because they don't have enough information? That's the beauty of it, guessing the meaning behind something based on the information that is presented. If someone wants to take it a step further and investigate another layer of stats that would be great.

I'd actually like to do that when time permits and, in fact, I started doing so this morning after my first reply in this thread. Your comments about interceptions led me to wonder about the specific field position involved in Ponder's INTs and the results after the change of possession on those plays. when i get the info together, I'll post it here.

Maybe I am oversensitive to his replies, because this isn't the first time and he tends to sprinkle insulting words into his posts and I'm not going to get into a war of insults on a sports forum.

If there was anything personally insulting in what I posted, that was unintentional.

And I have no problem with what anyone else posted on this thread, but it's annoying when Mothman constantly criticizes when he never makes any sort of statement or conclusion that hadn't been said by at least 50 other people.

Hopefully, there are a few people here who disagree with that. I'd like to think I'm a little more interesting than you're suggesting.

So if someone is going to be so critical, they need to stop being so safe and conservative with their own opinions, show some guts and make some bold statements of his own, and leave himself open to some criticism once in a while.

LOL! What sort of gutsy things do you want me to say? I wouldn't exactly say I'm conservative with my opinions but I don't recklessly throw out views I don't feel I can support so if that's your frustration, I apologize but it's just not who I am.

GBFavreFan wrote: No #### Mothman. Do you think actually need to explain that this doesn't cover incomplete passes? Did I ever say it did? No I didn't. I made a possible conclusion based on those COMPLETIONS. You think I don't understand or comprehend what a missed pass is you ####? It's this sort of condescending BS which is why I don't want you replying to my posts anymore. You add absolutely nothing except repeating and restating the obvious, even when its in reference to qualifications I already made in the post. You're free to have the last word because I'm done with you.

No personal attacks. At no time did Mothman make his post personal against you. If you don't like the way he posts it's YOUR responsibility to ignore his posts and not the other way around.

If you can't stand someone disagreeing with you I recommend finding another place to post. The name calling and confrontational tone won't be tolerated.

MV711 wrote:You're overcomplicating the issue with the original poster...He didn't state his comments as being gospel, only his simple analysis and opinion. Some people take their opinions rather seriously and others don't. He may be sensitive to your comments on his post but he as well as everyone is entitled to their comments/opinions, right or wrong.

Please, there's no reason to continue bringing up that he's entitled to his opinions. I did nothing to suggest otherwise. He posted. I commented. It's that simple and that's how this forum works, correct?

I wasn't trying to overcomplicate anything. I made a critical observation.

I give him props for his post in that I had a feeling some would be hammering him for simply stating his opinion, well thought out or not. He may not have written a doctorial thesis on this topic but I can't fault him for that!!

Just to be crystal clear: I didn't hammer him for his opinion (I didn't think I was hammering him at all). I made an observation about the way he was using the data. Others have since made similar observations. Are they "hammering" him? This talk about gospel and everyone being allowed to have an opinion just obscures the discussion. It's a given that everyone is allowed to have an opinion and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

GBFavreFan wrote:No #### Mothman. Do you think actually need to explain that this doesn't cover incomplete passes? Did I ever say it did? No I didn't. I made a possible conclusion based on those COMPLETIONS. You think I don't understand or comprehend what a missed pass is you ####? It's this sort of condescending BS which is why I don't want you replying to my posts anymore. You add absolutely nothing except repeating and restating the obvious, even when its in reference to qualifications I already made in the post. You're free to have the last word because I'm done with you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to be condescending but the actual point wasn't about incompletions. It was that the yards per completion stat doesn't indicate how far downfield the completed passes were targeted. The stat indicates yards gained and those yards could have been gained on passes that travelled one yard in the air or 20. I apologize if that seems like stating the obvious but since you've made several posts that seem to indicate a misunderstanding, I'm just trying to clarify.

GBFavreFan wrote:Ignoring that potshot about "recklessly throwing out views", my overall response to you is: fair enough, beef over.

It wasn't a potshot. I'm sorry you took it that way.

Mothman wrote: Please, there's no reason to continue bringing up that he's entitled to his opinions. I did nothing to suggest otherwise. He posted. I commented. It's that simple and that's how this forum works, correct?

I wasn't trying to overcomplicate anything. I made a critical observation.
Just to be crystal clear: I didn't hammer him for his opinion (I didn't think I was hammering him at all). I made an observation about the way he was using the data. Others have since made similar observations. Are they "hammering" him? This talk about gospel and everyone being allowed to have an opinion just obscures the discussion. It's a given that everyone is allowed to have an opinion and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

While I may or may not agree with GBFavreFan on all of what he stated and how sensitive he may be, I must opine on the fact that you did not offer any concrete opinions on what your take is on the stats. He makes a good point on this and would be interested on your take as you appear to be valued poster on this board....I'm sure all of us would like your concrete comments.

MV711 wrote:I may or may not agree with GBFavreFan on all of what he stated and how sensitive he may be, I must opine on the fact that you did not offer any concrete opinions on what your take is on the stats.

That's mainly because I didn't think the stats themselves provided enough info to draw firm conclusions.

He makes a good point on this and would be interested on your take as you appear to be valued poster on this board....I'm sure all of us would like your concrete comments.

Thanks. I'd actually like to hear yours as well. Mine may not be too interesting (ironic, eh?) because of what I just posted above but based on the info in the original post:

TD Passes: I agree with "GB" that not having to rely on a bunch of TD passes from Ponder is a good thing for the Vikes. It doesn't surprise me that the number of TD passes in wins and losses was similar because last year's Vikes didn't try to lean heavily on their passing game. As we all saw, they won by getting significant contributions from different areas of the team.

Interceptions: They're always detrimental in some way and they're often indicative of other things going wrong so again, it's no surprise that Ponder avoided INTs in a lot of the wins and was picked off in all but one loss. As I mentioned above, I want to finish looking up the various situations and consequences of the picks.

Completion % and attempts: Like interception stats, I think these numbers are often indicative of how the game is going elsewhere. If the team spends a lot of time trailing, they tend to pass more and so on. Consequently, it's one of those stats that really requires context to determine it's impact on wins and losses. If I remember correctly, Ponder's high in attempts came against Washington and the Vikes ended up trailing and passing the ball a lot in the second half of that game. Fewer attempts can simply mean the passing game was extremely effective or that it wasn't effective and the team either ran the ball frequently or went 3 and out a lot.

I think I've already said too much regarding long passes and average pass length.

Peterson: It's impossible to determine if Peterson carrying the ball more gives Ponder a boost in confidence. Peterson averaging more carries in wins could mean a number of things. Combined with the higher completion percentage, higher average per completion, fewer INTs, etc. it may just mean the offense as a whole was playing better. All of those things could add up to more first downs, longer possessions, more plays, etc.

For what it's worth, I don't think the idea behind throwing a lot of shorter passes was ever just to build confidence, although that might have been a consideration. I think it was due to a combination of factors. They wanted to manufacture touches for Harvin. Their pass protection was suspect so they were trying to get the ball out of Ponder's hands quickly and they didn't really have the personnel to go deep frequently and be effective. Taking time off the clock and resting the defense may have been factors too.

Like GBFavreFan, I feel good about Ponder going into this season, especially if the pass protection improves and some of the changes they've made on offense prove beneficial.

There you go... it's not exactly scintillating stuff (no bold statements!) but you asked for it. What's your take on the original post?

Mothman wrote:
That's mainly because I didn't think the stats themselves provided enough info to draw firm conclusions.

...do they ever?

MelanieMFunk wrote: ...do they ever?

LOL! Good point, Melanie.

Can I throw in a Ponder stat of my own?

In the most important game of the season, the playoff game. The Viking LOST without Christian Ponder. AD was there, Jared Allen was there, Antoine Winfield was there, you name it. Yes, I understand the coaches didn't let Joe Webb play his style. If this thread is about Ponder's stats, you can't leave out this important one.

petev_sj wrote:Can I throw in a Ponder stat of my own?

In the most important game of the season, the playoff game. The Viking LOST without Christian Ponder. AD was there, Jared Allen was there, Antoine Winfield was there, you name it. Yes, I understand the coaches didn't let Joe Webb play his style. If this thread is about Ponder's stats, you can't leave out this important one.

I agree with that. I firmly believe the Vikings badly missed Ponder in the playoff game, especially the way he played through the month of December. Put a healthy Ponder in the game and I think the Vikings would have won. They wouldn't have made it to the Super Bowl but they could have advanced one game into the playoffs.

losperros wrote: I agree with that. I firmly believe the Vikings badly missed Ponder in the playoff game, especially the way he played through the month of December. Put a healthy Ponder in the game and I think the Vikings would have won. They wouldn't have made it to the Super Bowl but they could have advanced one game into the playoffs.

At the very least, I think they would have been more competitive in that game.

I'm looking forward to seeing what an additional year of experience and a second offseason to study and work on his game will do for Ponder.

More Ponder talk... it didn't seem necessary to start a new thread since this one is basically offseason filler:

Christian Ponder has 'to be the guy,' Jared Allen says

Vikings defensive end Jared Allen says it's time for Ponder to shed the training wheels.

"I tell him all the time, you have to be the guy." Allen told "The Jim Rome Show" Thursday, via the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "Adrian (Peterson) can carry this team so far; our defense can carry this team so far. ... You know, you look at teams that historically win championships, and they have consistent play from the quarterback position."

Allen wasn't calling out his quarterback, but instead, calling for Ponder to step into his role.

"You should kind of have things down in your third year," Allen said. "We've got some good weapons for him. I hope he makes leaps and bounds, and has a phenomenal year, and we have a phenomenal year."

If Ponder doesn't have a "phenomenal year," we'll spend May 2014 discussing the rookie quarterback the Vikings will have just drafted. Coach Leslie Frazier and general manager Rick Spielman have (in under-the-radar fashion) compiled a strong roster around their quarterback. If Ponder can't flip the switch -- and we have our doubts -- someone else will get that opportunity.

Too many jobs are on the line at any given time in the NFL to float through life with a quarterback who takes you halfway there.

If Ponder fails in his third year, if he falls short of blooming into "the guy," his unchallenged run with the Vikings rapidly will come to a close.

We've discussed it before but it's always intriguing to me when people talk about the need for Ponder to prove he's "the guy" this season because the criteria for proving that are unclear. Some seem to think it's a statistical plateau he has to reach and for others it involves more intangibles. Some just don't think it's possible. It's not hard to envision a scenario at the end of the season where some fans feel Ponder has proved himself and others don't think he came close. I almost expect that scenario!

Mothman wrote:It's not hard to envision a scenario at the end of the season where some fans feel Ponder has proved himself and others don't think he came close. I almost expect that scenario!

I fully expect it.

At the end of this season I think the Vikings will have too much invested in Ponder, as well as feeling that they're too far into their rebuilding phase to draft a new QB and start all over at the most critical position on the team. So, whatever happens, the Vikings will put a positive spin on his season, forego a QB in next year's draft, and many fans will buy into Ponder being their franchise QB, whatever his stats or record.

Eli wrote: I fully expect it.

At the end of this season I think the Vikings will have too much invested in Ponder, as well as feeling that they're too far into their rebuilding phase to draft a new QB and start all over at the most critical position on the team. So, whatever happens, the Vikings will put a positive spin on his season, forego a QB in next year's draft, and many fans will buy into Ponder being their franchise QB, whatever his stats or record.

Or, you know, he could continue to improve and become reliable starter that us sheep can follow blindly too

Eli wrote: I fully expect it.

I should too. The only reason I said "almost" is because of the possibility Ponder doesn't play well enough to convince anybody he's "the guy"... and I really hope that doesn't happen.

At the end of this season I think the Vikings will have too much invested in Ponder, as well as feeling that they're too far into their rebuilding phase to draft a new QB and start all over at the most critical position on the team. So, whatever happens, the Vikings will put a positive spin on his season, forego a QB in next year's draft, and many fans will buy into Ponder being their franchise QB, whatever his stats or record.

That's a cynical view but I'll admit, it could easily play out that way. I hope Spielman will be more level-headed than that and be willing to move on if Ponder bombs in 2013. On the other hand, if Ponder shows sufficient progress, sticking with him longer could pay off. That's what makes the question of proving he's "the guy" interesting to me. Other than something obvious, like an MVP-caliber season, what would constitute proof? I don't know.