The Christian Ponder Thread

[Purple bruise]

For even the biggest cynics out there it would be hard to not see the potential in Ponder. Fortunately it is not up to "you" to make any football decisions for the Vikings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LCK5Df2S1M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoFrhWjWiBo

Okay then, I stand corrected

[Mothman]

Okay then, I stand corrected

Never underestimate a cynic's propensity for cynicism!

[Demi]

Never underestimate a cynic's propensity for cynicism!

Sadly they don't seem to make realistic breakdown videos of a players overall play. Or even lowlights. So yeah, you win...I guess? I can guarantee you if they did, it'd be a heck of a lot longer video than that.

[Mothman]

Compare the stats of Ponder and Dalton. They both have the same QBR (which is what this list is based on). But look at the TD/INT ratio. Dalton numbers are far better than Ponders. Besides, any QB list that has Jason Campbell on it should already raise a red flag.

LOL! You have a point about Campbell but so what if Dalton's red zone TD/INT are better than Ponder's? Maybe he IS a little better (the 0 INT stat is certainly impressive) or maybe the numbers are just indicative of differences in their two situations. It's worth noting that while Dalton's TD/INT ratio is superior, Ponder had a much higher completion percentage in the red zone. He's taken fewer sacks in that area too. The bottom line is a 99.7 QBR in the red zone is damn good so let's be happy that Ponder has done very well in the red zone.

It's worth mentioning that Dalton's attempted 270 more passes and played in 6 more games than Ponder over the same time span, which also influences the stats. He also gets to throw to A.J. Green, who has 18 TDs and 2407 yards in his first two seasons. Ponder hasn't had a target who could even approach those numbers, regardless of who was throwing the ball. I like Harvin's game but he's no A. J. Green.

It's also worth mentioning that the Vikings place quite a bit of emphasis on the run in the red zone. Over the past two seasons, the Vikings have rushed for 34 TDs and the Bengals have rushed for 21. Not all of those were red zone runs but as fans, we know the Vikes like to run the ball when they get near the goal line.

[Purple bruise]

LOL! You have a point about Campbell but so what if Dalton's red zone TD/INT are better than Ponder's? Maybe he IS a little better (the 0 INT stat is certainly impressive) or maybe the numbers are just indicative of differences in their two situations. It's worth noting that while Dalton's TD/INT ratio is superior, Ponder had a much higher completion percentage in the red zone. He's taken fewer sacks in that area too. The bottom line is a 99.7 QBR in the red zone is damn good so let's be happy that Ponder has done very well in the red zone.

It's worth mentioning that Dalton's attempted 270 more passes and played in 6 more games than Ponder over the same time span, which also influences the stats. He also gets to throw to A.J. Green, who has 18 TDs and 2407 yards in his first two seasons. Ponder hasn't had a target who could even approach those numbers, regardless of who was throwing the ball. I like Harvin's game but he's no A. J. Green.

It's also worth mentioning that the Vikings place quite a bit of emphasis on the run in the red zone. Over the past two seasons, the Vikings have rushed for 34 TDs and the Bengals have rushed for 21. Not all of those were red zone runs but as fans, we know the Vikes like to run the ball when they get near the goal line.

Great points Jim, especially the AJ Green comment. When it comes right down to it I could not care less what Dalton, Brees, Manning, Tebow, Sanchez, or any other QB is doing. The reality is that every team's situation is inique and the receiving corp, offensive line play (protection), wide receiver talent, and coaching all play a vital role in help determining how the QB is performing.
That being said, the really good QBs also seem to have all or some of these types of qualities; great arms (accuracy/strength), intelligence, mobility, leadership etc..
My perception is that Ponder does have most of these qualities and will be the very good qb that the organization drafted him to be for many years to come.

[Mothman]

Great points Jim, especially the AJ Green comment. When it comes right down to it I could not care less what Dalton, Brees, Manning, Tebow, Sanchez, or any other QB is doing. The reality is that every team's situation is inique and the receiving corp, offensive line play (protection), wide receiver talent, and coaching all play a vital role in help determining how the QB is performing.

Thank you. You're absolutely right about each team's situation being unique and abut the influence the team has on the QB. The QB obviously influences the players around him too and many people overlook that even defense and special teams play can have an influence on QB play (and vice versa). For example, if a defense gives up a lot of points and the offense is often stuck trying to overcome multi-score deficits, that can lead to more sacks and INTs because the opposing defense knows the trailing team has to pass.

That being said, the really good QBs also seem to have all or some of these types of qualities; great arms (accuracy/strength), intelligence, mobility, leadership etc..
My perception is that Ponder does have most of these qualities and will be the very good qb that the organization drafted him to be for many years to come.

I hope so. He definitely doesn't have a great arm but he has an NFL-caliber arm. If he's going to become the QB the Vikes drafted him to be I think he'll have to excel in other areas and he's shown signs of being able to do that, which is why I can't join the naysayers and cynics when it comes to Ponder. I'm not sold on him yet but the potential to excel is clearly there and he's shown enough of it for me to believe it's not a fluke or illusion. Hopefully, he'll take a big step forward this season in terms of both production and consistency and establish himself as the team's QB of the present and future.

[Mothman]

My point was directed more at the QBR flaw than anything else. How can anything be weighted more than an INT? Completion percentage? It'll just turn a 35yd fG into a 25yd FG. An INT takes points off the board.

Which makes Daltons 0 INT's even more impressive compared to Ponders 3 and should be weighted in the QBR.

As I said, it IS impressive and maybe he's simply better. However, regarding INTs, not all INTs are equal. For example, the red zone INT Ponder threw at GB last season was awful, a terrible choice. The red zone INT he threw at Washington? Not so much. He tried to make something happen on 3rd and goal from the 3 with 28 seconds remaining in the game and the Vikes trailing by two scores. Unlike the INT at Green Bay, taking a chance in that situation was the right thing to do, even if the odds of success were poor, because scoring at that point was essentially the Vikings only chance to come back and win the game. Both throws resulted in INTs and that's never a desirable outcome but in terms of QB decision-making, the two throws were definitely not equivalent. In other words, just because an INT appears on a stat line, that doesn't always mean the QB made a poor choice or a bad play. Some INTs occur as the result of a desperate plays where there's little choice but to take a chance and see what happens and that stuff is supposed to be considered when putting together the QBR (assuming we're talking about the ESPN-created rating here... that's the only one I'm aware of called a QBR.)

Again, my point was mainly about the QBR. It had nothing to do with Ponder, Dalton or their teammates. Why would a QB with a 35TD 0INT ratio have the same QBR as a QB with a 25TD 3INT ratio?

Half the number of sacks and a 10.5% difference in completion percentage probably had something to do with it.

The "Red Zone Rating" is found using a simple formula that subtracts TO% from TD%, with more weight towards the TO% (100% more).

I actually don't think that provides a more accurate picture because it overemphasizes turnovers and thus over-punishes the QB for INTs.

Anyway, I think the main takeaway here should be that Ponder has performed well in the red zone.

[King James]

I give Ponder credit, I think outside of Andy Dalton no one other starting QB from that draft class was able to get their teams to the playoffs.

[Mothman]

It would be impossible to over analyze every category on someones stat line.

ESPN's QBR rating actually involves examining every play and that's just where it begins. It's very complex and somewhat subjective ratings system and honestly, I'm not a big fan of their approach.

Maybe Dalton gets blitzed more often. Maybe Ponder throws short, high percentage passes in the redzone. Maybe half of Daltons TDs are meaningless. I doubt this QB rating differentiates who's at fault or the situation. So if you go by just the numbers, 35/0 is miles better than 25/3, which should be reflected in the final rating.

It should, although games played still need to be considered. Dalton has played in 32 of 32 possible games since entering the league. If I remember correctly, Ponder has essentially played in 26 (when you include his first appearance in relief of McNabb at Chicago and factor in some time missed later that season). So, while 35/0 is obviously more impressive than 25/3, Dalton is averaging 1.09 red zone TDs per game and Ponder is averaging .96 red zone TDs per game. In other words, there's not much of a difference there. The biggest difference is the 3 INTs.

As for weighting a redzone INT, you're basically taking points off the board. I think a QB should be over punished for this.

I don't see why over-punishing is necessary. An INT is usually a mistake so that should factor into any rating but why should taking potential points off the board be given extra weight over actually putting points on the board? That makes no sense to me. If a turnover in the red zone is the worst possible outcome of the possession, a TD is the best possible outcome. Why give one more weight than the other?

But you're right, Ponder does show great poise at times which I really hope we see more of this season.

I hope we see it ALL season.

The two INT's you described, is that all from memory? Impressive if it is. I'm tempted to subscribe to Game Rewind just to rewatch those two situations.

You don't want to see that GB INT again. It was ugly.

I did write all of that from memory but I also watched those games twice last season and those moments were kind of burned into my brain. Trust me, my memory isn't that good...

[smoothoperator]

dalton would be benched if it werent for aj green, just look at the numbers. he didnt have a lot more yards than ponder and when you look at how many yards aj green had, you can tell how bad he would be on a team like ours. ponder is improving and has shown real promise. lets hope that continues with a much improved receiving core!

[Funkytown]

You don't want to see that GB INT again. It was ugly.

Ain't that the truth.

[Raptorman]

The other thing about interceptions, although I don't think its much of a factor here in the redzone discussion, is that not all interceptions are the QB's fault. But all interceptions are charged to the QB no matter what. That is one thing that ESPN's QBR does take into consideration. Since they look at each play, they determine who is at fault for the interception. I know many don't like it, mostly because they don't know how its done, but it does have some upside.

[Mothman]

The other thing about interceptions, although I don't think its much of a factor here in the redzone discussion, is that not all interceptions are the QB's fault. But all interceptions are charged to the QB no matter what. That is one thing that ESPN's QBR does take into consideration. Since they look at each play, they determine who is at fault for the interception. I know many don't like it, mostly because they don't know how its done, but it does have some upside.

It definitely has some upside. I think it's too subjective but when used an additional way of looking at QB performance along with passer ratings and other stats, it has it's place.

[Tark10]

Comparing Tarkenton to Ponder would be like comparing Unitas to Vick. In short, there are absolutely no similarities.

[Mothman]

I keep seeing and hearing about the supposed 8 game streak of poor play Ponder went through during the middle of last season. I realize he played some of his best football early and late in the season so in terms of sound bites, it's convenient to just lump the rest into one bad streak but unless simply throwing an INT or two in a game automatically equals a bad performance, Ponder didn't have an 8 game streak of poor play. Since he actually did have a streak of poor performances I know I'm splitting hairs here but it bugs me when stuff like this just spreads like a meme. A few reporters say it because it's convenient and pretty soon everybody starts throwing it out there like it's fact.

The first game of that supposed 8 game bad streak was the Vikings 30-7 defeat of the Titans and Ponder was 25-35 for 228, 2 TDs and 2 INTs in that game (actually a much better performance than he had a week earlier at Detroit, a game which is typically grouped with his good performances even though he was 16-26 0/0 in that game). Those numbers in a blowout win constitute a bad game?

The actual streak arguably started the following week, although I'd describe Ponder's performance at Washington as erratic rather than bad. He started well and finished 35 of 52 for 352 with 2 TDs/2 INTs but one of the interceptions was a "pick 6" and he lost a fumble that, if I remember correctly, became a TD. He also threw a desperation pick late, (which I mentioned a few posts back).

The next 3 games (ARI, TB @SEA) were ugly for just about everyone involved in the passing offense and Ponder definitely didn't play well.

After that, Ponder was 24-32 for 221 yards, 2 TDs and 0 INTs in a home win over Detroit. Again, that's a bad performance?

Rough games at Chicago and GB followed and then the improvement down the stretch that is referred to so often began.

I know this is a long post to make a simple point so thanks for reading this far. My only real point here is that the media sometimes oversimplifies things for the sake of convenience or to make a sound bite but in the process of doing so, their message is deceptive. Ponder didn't have an 8 game stretch of poor play sandwiched between 8 strong performances. For better or worse, he was more erratic than that in 2012.