Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleKoolaid wrote: AD happened to have some outstanding games. When the Packers figered how to stop him we had nothing, Having the uisual no back up plan for QB didnt help matters. Sure wish the vikes would finally put some tought into this position.

LOL! "Figuring out how to "stop" Peterson consisted of holding him at 99 yards. Also, Ponder wasn't playing that game. So it wasn't the "usual no back-up plan not helping matters," it *was* the "matter" in its entirety.

dead_poet wrote: As Siefert pointed out, it required a record-setting performance by AD, which cannot be counted on to replicate.

That's obviously a good point but If they do a good job this offseason, they shouldn't have to count on Peterson replicating that performance. To me, the underlying point behind the observation that the Vikings won 5 of their last 7 regular season games without Harvin is that his presence isn't essential to winning. They won those games with Wright, Jenkins and Simpson at WR so while it might be tough to improve on Harvin, it shouldn't be that tough to give AD more help than those other 3 receivers were able to provide.

In Harvin's best statistical season, the Vikes won 3 games. Last season, they won 10, 5 with him and 5 without him. There's no denying that he's a special player and that his abilities will be missed but he clearly wasn't essential to winning. They need to find a way to continue improving the team as a whole and if they do that, they should be just fine without Percy.

losperros wrote: Oh, talk about knee jerk reactions, it gets even worse. Some people even believe the Vikings were better without Harvin in those last four games, rather than realizing the blatantly obvious fact that Harvin would have added yet another weapon to last December's performance by the team. Not only that, a healthy Harvin and Ponder was badly needed at Lambeau during the playoff game.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but if Percy made the TEAM so much better when he played, why did the team manage to win as many games (against much tougher opponents) when he was absent? If he's that much of an "impact maker" how did the Vikings pull it off? (MVPeterson is the obvious answer, and AD wasn't 100% when Harvin was "carrying the load" for the offense.)

I'm not saying he's not a great player and that I'm "glad he's gone" because I think it represents a loss of what the Vikings could be. I'm saying that he's not necessary for our success and if a player, no matter how talented individually he might be, creates turmoil in the locker room, he can make the TEAM worse. Whether or not this was/is the case with Harvin, who knows. I'm more concerned with the impact it has on players like Peterson and Williams who apparently are not happy with the trade. That, too, could hurt the team, but I suspect both players will rise above it...

Just Me wrote:I'm not saying he's not a great player and that I'm "glad he's gone" because I think it represents a loss of what the Vikings could be. I'm saying that he's not necessary for our success and if a player, no matter how talented individually he might be, creates turmoil in the locker room, he can make the TEAM worse. Whether or not this was/is the case with Harvin, who knows. I'm more concerned with the impact it has on players like Peterson and Williams who apparently are not happy with the trade. That, too, could hurt the team, but I suspect both players will rise above it...

I think they will. In fact, I'm not worried about that at all. AD and KW are true pros and they'll give their all next season. Players are rarely going to approve of a playmaker being traded away because they understandably take the short view. Coaches tend to do the same which is why it's good to have a GM that makes these decisions with the long term success of the team in mind.

I think you guys are reading more into what I was saying than I actually said. They team won against strong opposition without Harvin. That doesn’t mean they are better without him, it just means they won without him. Harvin leaving makes us a less talented team, there is no doubt, but this same less talented team still closed the season strong. So while we are not as talented as we once were, we are still a threat in the division.

As far as AP’s performance, I’ll grant you that his pace may not be repeatable, but what does that have to do with PH? The games where AP went Beast Mode were mostly after PH was on IR. In other words, AP has shown he can go beast mode without PH on the field. In that sense the only change is that now defenses have a year of film to watch. We didn’t have PH during most beast mode last year, now that situation will continue.

I stand by my original view of this. The guy to hate is Harvin. As has been pointed out from several soruces, something like this doesn’t happen unless a team decides losing the talent is worth not dealing with the “other” issues. The source of all the “other” stuff is Harvin AKA Stephon Marbury the 2nd.

GBFavreFan wrote: I think the reasons why the Vikings didn't want to extend Percy Harvin, despite his contributions and productions are a bit clearer now. The Vikings are 100% committed to Christian Ponder. Even if all of Percy's criticisms of Ponder are true, the Vikings don't want a key player if, he doesn't believe in their guy.

I don't think it's a matter of simply believing in Ponder specifically. I'm sure that Harvin isn't the only player on the team who doesn't think Ponder has what it takes. The difference is they know how to keep their mouths shut.

You don't dog your teammates ... especially one that has to be thought of as a leader on the team.

I think this report is far from the complete truth. Think about it: That report is basically saying the Vikings traded the most dynamic player in the NFL because he said the starting QB wasn't good enough.

We certainly do not "know" if this is or is not the case, but I think it is fair to say that if the Vikings made that decision then the FO is more stupid than even the biggest rube fan would describe them. Just my opinion, but that seems very farfetched.

Seifert cited sources today who said that the antics of Harvin that are known are just the tip of the iceberg. Just as above, there is no way to "know" if this is a fact, it is an unnamed source. I just find the argument more reasonable, ie, what would be a justifiable reason to trade Harvin? I do not find his dissaproval of Ponder as being sufficient cause for the move.

I could be wrong, Spielman and Frasier could be total idiots and that is why they shipped him. I just don't find that conclusion consistent with the body of work we've seen from those two. Harvin being a headcase does fit the body of expierence, however.

mansquatch wrote:I think this report is far from the complete truth. Think about it: That report is basically saying the Vikings traded the most dynamic player in the NFL because he said the starting QB wasn't good enough.

We certainly do not "know" if this is or is not the case, but I think it is fair to say that if the Vikings made that decision then the FO is more stupid than even the biggest rube fan would describe them. Just my opinion, but that seems very farfetched.

Seifert cited sources today who said that the antics of Harvin that are known are just the tip of the iceberg. Just as above, there is no way to "know" if this is a fact, it is an unnamed source. I just find the argument more reasonable, ie, what would be a justifiable reason to trade Harvin? I do not find his dissaproval of Ponder as being sufficient cause for the move.

I could be wrong, Spielman and Frasier could be total idiots and that is why they shipped him. I just don't find that conclusion consistent with the body of work we've seen from those two. Harvin being a headcase does fit the body of expierence, however.

My guess is Harvin's attitude regarding Ponder (if reports about that are accurate) was just one factor among many that led the Vikings to trade him. I'm guessing money and the team's confidence in Harvin when considered against his likely cost were the two biggest factors but in a situation like this, there were probably quite a few considerations.

i really do love these boards for instant comic relief. percey harvin is the best receiver in the nfl?????? i've read a multitude of absurd comments before, but this ranks up there all time. he is one of the best all around players in the game, but best receiver? get serious. nobody seems to be addressing the real issue here: HE DIDN"T WANT TO PLAY FOR THE VIKINGS. so, we had to trade him regardless of anyone's opinion.

Just Me wrote: LOL! "Figuring out how to "stop" Peterson consisted of holding him at 99 yards. Also, Ponder wasn't playing that game. So it wasn't the "usual no back-up plan not helping matters," it *was* the "matter" in its entirety.

Wat? First of I stated Ponder wasnt playing. Not that Ponder ever plays well, but when he plays average, with AD, we have a chance of winning.

The Vikings neglect the QB. They wait till the last minute to fill this roll. And their backups flat out suck. If you really need me to point out some of our previous QBs and 2nd and 3rd strings I will. But I dont think you do. I really dont know the point of your post unless you are trying to say Ponder had more to do with this team moving forward then AD. He didnt. Ph wants a QB that can throw the ball more then a foot. Can you blame him?

And yeah when AD rushes for close to 200 yards the first time we played them, then strugled to get to 100 yards, I would call that a GB victory.

Cliff wrote: So let me get this straight. Harvin demanded to be traded, a move that obviously makes the TEAM worse, because he's so worried about how well the team does?

He just had to be traded because he realizes the team he was on is going the complete wrong way? The team that improved from 3-13 to 10-6 in one season?

I don't hold any hostile feelings against Harvin for doing what he thought best for his career but let's be clear ... he's worried about HIS career and not the team.

The team improved because of PH the first part of the season, AD playing god the rest of the season, along with an improved secondary, with the likes of Smith. Having Walsh helped too. Ponder had NOTHING to do with it. Nothing. Nada. Zero. He will always, at best, be an average QB. And if Im right, hes just another Tjoke, that will be a backup the rest of his life.

Mothman wrote: Supposedly... but IF that's true, I agree that it reveals what kind of teammate Harvin was and frankly, it doesn't reflect well on him.

Agree 100% Jim. So Harvin doesn't like Ponder or believe in him. So Harvin clashes with the coaches and the trainers. So what? Nothing about Ponder is necessarily permanent. If Ponder doesn't cut the mustard he'll be replaced at some point. Just because it isn't right away or soon enough for Harvin's taste is no reason to bail on the entire team. If I was one of his teammates, I would wonder about that. The team was pushing late and Harvin could have been there to show his support and he chose not to, and that's the bottom line. He basically abandoned his team.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Wat? First of I stated Ponder wasnt playing. Not that Ponder ever plays well, but when he plays average, with AD, we have a chance of winning.

The Vikings neglect the QB. They wait till the last minute to fill this roll. And their backups flat out suck. If you really need me to point out some of our previous QBs and 2nd and 3rd strings I will. But I dont think you do. I really dont know the point of your post unless you are trying to say Ponder had more to do with this team moving forward then AD. He didnt. Ph wants a QB that can throw the ball more then a foot. Can you blame him?

And yeah when AD rushes for close to 200 yards the first time we played them, then strugled to get to 100 yards, I would call that a GB victory.

I don't think you and I are actually disagreeing that much here and I'll try to make my post a little clearer (In re-reading it, I can see where it would be confusing).

You had stated (my paraphrase here) the fact that Webb starting "wasn't helping matters" with Peterson having to carry the team. Your statement was that when Green Bay figured out how to "stop" AD then we were sunk. I really wanted to only point out 2 things:

1) 99 yards by a back is normally a "good game" (not being stopped); and
2) Since Webb played that game (not Ponder) - To say he "didn't help matters" (with me thinking the "matter" was if AD is "shut down" we lose) I was trying to make the point (admittedly in a confusing way) that since Ponder didn't play we don't know if:

a) Peterson gets "held" to only 99 yards since Ponder is a better QB than Webb and the defense may have to play more "honest"; and
b) even if he does get "held" to 99 yards, are you certain that Ponder loses that game.

My point was that Webb lost the game. Ponder might have won it.
Peterson seemed to indicate during an interview that if Ponder had been playing in Green Bay, the Vikings may well have won.

Sorry for the confusion...

The flip side of the coin, for alot of people here, is, who is a better football player, PH or Ponder? PH ofc. We realize now he had issues, and had problems with the Vikings. But if you think Ponder is the better player of the 2, you are wrong. He may be the better person, but who cares. I like watching football, and I like it when my Vikings win football games. Im not going to tell my kids to model their lives after NFL players, or artists, or singers etc. Not a chance. Im tired of this losing attitude the Vikings fans have become used to. With inadequate QBs esp. Like we are supposed to give them 3-5 years no matter what. Drives me insane.

PH was exciting. Like Moss was. Ponder is blah, like eating oatmeal.

Mothman wrote: Supposedly... but IF that's true, I agree that it reveals what kind of teammate Harvin was and frankly, it doesn't reflect well on him.

This is really the only reason I'm not blasting Spielman for this trade. I'll take Harvin on the field over Wallace or Cruz every day of the week (and twice on Sunday!) and I agree with him on the concerns about Ponder. However, this was not the way to handle it.