Page 2 of 6

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 1:24 am
by VikingLord
Mothman wrote: Sorry to be longwinded. We all play to our strengths. ;) My point is, based on his history over the last several years, I have a hard time seeing Cassel as a rock solid insurance policy that gives the Vikings the luxury of just sitting back and taking their time with Bridgewater because they're getting all the quality QB play they need. They can choose to take their time anyway but the assumption that Cassel, who has not been a reliable, quality starter for years, provides the insurance a reliable starter would provide, is hard for me to accept.

Who knows how Ponder even figures into the equation... :confused:
Given that Spielman brought Cassell back on a 2 year deal, I'm not sure Cassell is viewed by the Vikings as a reliable starter. He does seem to be favored over Ponder, however, as the Vikings did not exercise Ponder's 5th year option, so between the 2 it seems obvious if Bridgewater is sitting for any length of time before he starts, he'll likely be watching Cassell's inconsistency rather than Ponder's inconsistency.

And on the topic of Bridgewater, I'd say he hardly got a ringing endorsement either with the Vikes passing on him at #9 and then the rumors they had Manziel rated as their top QB. While I'm sure they want what we all want which is a reliable, long-term answer at the QB position, I find it hard to believe they are convinced Bridgewater is that answer. If they were, they would have done exactly what you said they should have done at #9 and that is not mess around and draft the QB they wanted.

I'm happy the Vikings took a swing at QB here, but if anyone believes the position is somehow stable now I think we have a ways to go yet before we reach that point. As far as Bridgewater sitting goes, it might not be all that long before we see him under center.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 1:49 am
by Slick Rick
They need to NOT do something because they think the fans will like it. Whoever the best QB coming out of camp is should start, even if that's Christian Ponder.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:55 am
by majorm
Boon wrote: A fluke play? A defensive player gets pretty much a coverage sack and forces a fumble and thats a fluke play?
Bruise is so blinded by Florida State love. I don't care what the stats say. I know what I saw last season . Cassel was clearly the better QB.

I have softened a bit and have said I'd be okay with giving Ponder a fair shot to WIN the job. He won't! He can NOT make the throws! I just don't see the arm strength necessary to be a quality starting QB in the NFL. That - along with his pocket panic attacks - I just don't see improving no matter how much more he's coached.

But, I would love it if Teddy went all "Russell Wilson" in camp/pre-season and they just HAVE to start him. I think that's what we all would all really like to see.

I've never been a strong believer in the "sit and learn" philosophy. What can really be learned standing on the sideline not seeing a defense or getting a feel for the speed of the game?

If Teddy shows a pretty quick grasp of the offense and is making all the throws in practice, get him in there. I know there would be some growing pains but I think it's a pretty good scenario to see what he can do. The team has a decent O-Line. They have some pretty good weapons for him on offense. It's not the same situation as with a lot of highly drafted QBs that are supposed to come in and be saviors with a horrible supporting cast and an O-line made up of matadors.

From a skill-set standpoint, he's already the best QB on the team and it's not close. He can make all the throws like Cassel and has the ability to avoid the rush and make plays with his legs like Ponder.

It will all hinge on how quickly he can pick up the offense. They'll see that in practice. And then how quickly he can adjust to the much faster game speed. Won't know that until he's on the game field.

So, I don't think Teddy will start game 1, but I hope he's starting by mid-season. If he's not, it will mean two things: Cassel is playing great; probably not. Or Teddy is having a tough time; hope not.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 7:28 am
by Mothman
VikingLord wrote:Given that Spielman brought Cassell back on a 2 year deal, I'm not sure Cassell is viewed by the Vikings as a reliable starter.


Honestly, I'm not sure if they view him that way either. Zimmer has repeatedly said he wants the best QB starting so I think the sense of complacency I mentioned above (complacency probably wasn't the best choice of words... perhaps comfort or security?) is something I'm perceiving from fans and the media more than anything else. I just keep reading over and over again how Cassel's presence somehow means the Vikings won't need to start a rookie and I have a hard time seeing how Cassel's presence insures that or anything else.
He does seem to be favored over Ponder, however, as the Vikings did not exercise Ponder's 5th year option, so between the 2 it seems obvious if Bridgewater is sitting for any length of time before he starts, he'll likely be watching Cassell's inconsistency rather than Ponder's inconsistency.
LOL! I agree, that seems likely.
And on the topic of Bridgewater, I'd say he hardly got a ringing endorsement either with the Vikes passing on him at #9 and then the rumors they had Manziel rated as their top QB. While I'm sure they want what we all want which is a reliable, long-term answer at the QB position, I find it hard to believe they are convinced Bridgewater is that answer. If they were, they would have done exactly what you said they should have done at #9 and that is not mess around and draft the QB they wanted.

I'm happy the Vikings took a swing at QB here, but if anyone believes the position is somehow stable now I think we have a ways to go yet before we reach that point. As far as Bridgewater sitting goes, it might not be all that long before we see him under center.
Well said, you've articulated my view on this better than I did myself. Thanks.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 7:39 am
by Mothman
majorm wrote:I've never been a strong believer in the "sit and learn" philosophy. What can really be learned standing on the sideline not seeing a defense or getting a feel for the speed of the game?
Quite a bit, I imagine. Giving a player time to get thoroughly familiar with the offense and his receivers, time to work on any mechanical issues he may have and turn bad habits into good, etc. before he hits the field and faces split-second decisions at game speed against opponents with bad intentions is probably pretty beneficial.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 7:54 am
by majorm
Mothman wrote: Quite a bit, I imagine. Giving a player time to get thoroughly familiar with the offense and his receivers, time to work on any mechanical issues he may have and turn bad habits into good, etc. before he hits the field and faces split-second decisions at game speed against opponents with bad intentions is probably pretty beneficial.
I guess; but that's what practice is for. The only thing that truly gets you ready for game conditions are game conditions. With the exception of Rogers - who only sat because he was behind Favre - nearly all the top QBs today played pretty much right away.

Again, if he has a tough time grasping the offense, then of course you don't run him out there. But if he appears to have it under control in practice, I say put him in. And man, if he has ANY issues with his mechanics I'm going to scream! The last two QBs the Vikings have drafted have had big issues with mechanics. They should at least be mechanically sound by the time they get to this level or they shouldn't be drafting them.

Just don't sit him because he's a rookie and you think he needs time to learn. If he's the best QB, start him.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:01 am
by Webbfann
VikingLord wrote: Given that Spielman brought Cassell back on a 2 year deal, I'm not sure Cassell is viewed by the Vikings as a reliable starter. He does seem to be favored over Ponder, however, as the Vikings did not exercise Ponder's 5th year option, so between the 2 it seems obvious if Bridgewater is sitting for any length of time before he starts, he'll likely be watching Cassell's inconsistency rather than Ponder's inconsistency.

And on the topic of Bridgewater, I'd say he hardly got a ringing endorsement either with the Vikes passing on him at #9 and then the rumors they had Manziel rated as their top QB. While I'm sure they want what we all want which is a reliable, long-term answer at the QB position, I find it hard to believe they are convinced Bridgewater is that answer. If they were, they would have done exactly what you said they should have done at #9 and that is not mess around and draft the QB they wanted.

I'm happy the Vikings took a swing at QB here, but if anyone believes the position is somehow stable now I think we have a ways to go yet before we reach that point. As far as Bridgewater sitting goes, it might not be all that long before we see him under center.
You're contradicting the obvious implications of your own argument. The fact that they see Cassel as a reliable starter, as you admit they must, is one of the main reasons they could afford to pass on a QB at #9. Plus, even Mothman said numerous times last season that defense was our biggest need. I know this because we had to endure him arguing that even Ponder could have won more games if only our D was better. So they already have an adequate starter in Cassel, and still have gaping holes on defense. Throw in the fact that none of this year's QBs was considered a sure success in the NFL and this all makes defense the obvious choice for 9.

And of course none of this means Teddy won't start if he shows he's the best choice come fall.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:09 am
by J. Kapp 11
KSViking wrote: They went out and got Cassel this offseason, he was not some Leper that nobody was interested in. If that were the case, he would not have exercised his option to leave the team in the first place, and we would not have signed him back at a higher price.

I'm not a Cassel fan, but being a Chiefs hater, and living down here. I watched many games in disgust as he helped them pull out wins. His KC Story was this. First year, he got hurt early in the season, MCL, but played the rest of the year. The New coach was out of his element, trying to be OC and HC at same time. Whole team was in disarray. They finished 4-10, next season Charlie Weis was hired to be the OC, Cassel was starter from the first day, and he made the playoffs, probowl, good stats. Then came 2011 and chiefs lost a bunch of their starters. Jamal Charles, the Starting TE, and most importantly, Charlie Weis got tired of Todd Haley, and left. Haley called the plays again that year, just like 2010. And basically same results as in 2010. Losing season.. (Although I was about 20 ft from the field as I watch them beat the Vikings, with McNabb throwing the ball to the gophers huddled somewhere underneither the turf.) 2012 Romeo Crennel took over the team, the whole team sucked. Cassel was put on IR half way through the season with a broken hand, which saved him the misery of playing on that horrid squad for the rest of the year. 2013 came around, new GM, New head coach Andy Reid, new philosophy, and I think they wanted a new start, clean slate. So they traded for Alex Smith. They didn't want to get stuck with Cassel's large salary, so they cut him. Vikings picked him up the next day. Anyway.. Long story short. Cassel, unlike Ponder has at least had a couple successful seasons. One coming in as Brady was injured, and one in KC. Both times he had good coaching, and a stable environment. I think he could have another good year or 2 under Norv and a organization that wants him to be the starter for a year or 2, not a bunch of controversy. Last year, he was never treated like a starter. He didn't get the opportunities to be the guy in practice for the first half of the year, as Ponder was in there. When Ponder came out, the Org tried to throw Josh Freeman in as the guy, and when everything else failed, Cassel was finally given the nod, but by then it seemed like the whole team was sort of defeated. He played some good games, he played some bad games but I think this year, he is at least being setup to succeed more than he was last year. We drafted a QB in first round for a reason, Cassel isn't the long term solution to get to the Superbowl. However with some help, I think he could help us get to the playoffs.
Great post.

I'm not delusional enough to believe Cassel is the guy to lead the Vikings to he Super Bowl. But honestly, for all this talk about "anybody but Ponder," that's the FANS' attitude. The coaching staff's attitude last year seemed to be "anybody but Cassel." They stayed with Ponder to a fault, then went to stinking Freeman and back to Ponder before finally giving the job to Cassel.

Also, there's a lot of talk about how poorly Cassel played against teams with great defenses, like Cincinnati and Carolina. Well, what makes anybody think Ponder would have performed better? Against Cleveland, a good but not great defense, he was awful. And against Seattle, he was completely intimidated. Ponder's so-called good games came against bottom-feeder defenses. At least Cassel had excellent games against playoff teams in Baltimore and Philadelphia.

Finally, if good coaching can somehow make Ponder better, than why wouldn't it also make Cassel better? KSViking has pointed out that when Cassel has had good coaching, he's been very good. (In fairness to Ponder, he really hasn't.)

I'm excited about Teddy Bridgewater. And if he's ready Week 1, start him. But the idea that Christian Ponder should start if Teddy isn't ready -- I'll hurl on the TV if I see Ponder enter anything but a preseason game unless there are injuries to the other two.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:23 am
by Purple bruise
King James wrote: Exactly. And plus there's NOTHING he can learn from Ponder or Cassel. His game will be much better than theirs.
That is laughable if you think that a rookie QB CAN'T learn anything from 2 veteren QBs with 13 years of experience.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:28 am
by Purple bruise
Boon wrote: A fluke play? A defensive player gets pretty much a coverage sack and forces a fumble and thats a fluke play?



This is a fluke play. A defensive stop on a sack is not a fluke play, its a good play
Yep, that was a bigger fluke play no doubt but my point is how often in the closing minutes of a game does a team get a strip/sack to end the game when the other teasm is about to score a tying or winning TD. I guess to you it might be very common but not to me :wink:

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:49 am
by Mothman
majorm wrote:I guess; but that's what practice is for.


That's what I'm saying... but you practice to prepare and if you get more time to practice before being thrown into the meaningful action, that can probably be very beneficial, especially if a player has aspects of his game that really need work. It's like the difference of having one rehearsal before a performance or a months worth of rehearsals.
The only thing that truly gets you ready for game conditions are game conditions. With the exception of Rogers - who only sat because he was behind Favre - nearly all the top QBs today played pretty much right away.
Brady didn't and Brees didn't so that's 3 of the top 4 (with Peyton Manning obviously being the fourth) who essentially sat for a season or more before seeing much playing time (Brady and Brees each saw a little action in their first season so they didn't completely sit out). There is no substitute for game conditions but there's a lot to be said for preparation and for being as ready to handle those conditions as possible.

I think the choice of when to start a QB is both a question of what's best for a particular individual and a particular team. I definitely think it's possible to set a QB's development back by starting him too soon.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:57 am
by Purple bruise
Mothman wrote:

That's what I'm saying... but you practice to prepare and if you get more time to practice before being thrown into the meaningful action, that can probably be very beneficial, especially if a player has aspects of his game that really need work. It's like the difference of having one rehearsal before a performance or a months worth of rehearsals.
Brady didn't and Brees didn't so that's 3 of the top 4 (with Peyton Manning obviously being the fourth) who essentially sat for a season or more before seeing much playing time (Brady and Brees each saw a little action in their first season so they didn't completely sit out). There is no substitute for game conditions but there's a lot to be said for preparation and for being as ready to handle those conditions as possible.

I think the choice of when to start a QB is both a question of what's best for a particular individual and a particular team. I definitely think it's possible to set a QB's development back by starting him too soon.
See Ponder's career for a prime example, a rookie with no training camp, followed by being thrown into the fire after the Mcflab fiasco.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:00 am
by Webbfann
Purple bruise wrote: Yep, that was a bigger fluke play no doubt but my point is how often in the closing minutes of a game does a team get a strip/sack to end the game when the other teasm is about to score a tying or winning TD. I guess to you it might be very common but not to me :wink:

Ahh, a new statistic enters Viking lore: the "about to score". Pittsburgh tallied an "about to score" on the last drive of the London game. We'll shorten this to "near score". This new statistic joins the dictionary in the same game that brought us the "near interception" statistic made famous by people who don't think Matt Cassel is an improvement over Ponder. Matt Cassel had a couple of "near interceptions" in the Pittsburgh game, they pointed out.

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:02 am
by maembe
Can someone explain to me how not playing football makes one better at football and playing football makes one worse?

Re: Who should start at QB?

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:03 am
by VikingPaul73
Purple bruise wrote:
Talking about getting shut down. Against the Bengals he was 13-27 for 114 yds. and 3 interceptions with a 32.6 rating..
But this was against a Zimmer D! It's amazing he actually survived the game. I'd say 13-27 for 114 yds. and 3 interceptions with a 32.6 rating is a huge achievement against such an invincible foe!!