Vikings Message Board.Com

J. Kapp 11 wrote:IAlso, 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?

Nothing but the point isn't that Ponder could or would have done better, it's that Cassel played poorly in those games. Ponder is not the standard against which Cassel needs to be measured. The Vikings need a QB who can play better against those defenses.

KSViking has pointed out that when Cassel has had good coaching, he's been very good.

No offense to KSViking but his post made Cassel sound a little too much like a victim and I have a hard time seeing it that way. A QB isn't simply a product of whatever coach is manipulating his puppet strings. Coaching certainly has an impact but Cassel has to be held responsible for his performances on the field, just like any other QB, and in KC those performances were often sub-par. It definitely doesn't serve a QB well when he has to keep dealing with different offensive coordinators and different systems but I don't see too many people here forgiving Jay Cutler's mistakes over the years because of all the changes in systems and playcallers he's had to deal with... of course, if he was a member of the Vikings, the forgiveness might flow freely.

Webbfann wrote: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.

Yes, it's silly for anyone to point to a "near interception" as an issue when we all know that throwing a pass into the hands of a defender who drops it represents a much better decision by the QB than throwing a pass into the hands of a defender who catches it.

VikingPaul73 wrote: 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!!

Mothman wrote:
No offense to KSViking but his post made Cassel sound a little too much like a victim and I have a hard time seeing it that way. A QB isn't simply a product of whatever coach is manipulating his puppet strings. Coaching certainly has an impact but Cassel has to be held responsible for his performances on the field, just like any other QB, and in KC those performances were often sub-par. It definitely doesn't serve a QB well when he has to keep dealing with different offensive coordinators and different systems but I don't see too many people here forgiving Jay Cutler's mistakes over the years because of all the changes in systems and playcallers he's had to deal with... of course, if he was a member of the Vikings, the forgiveness might flow freely.

Even the staunchest Ponder abolitionists around here have cut him some slack because he had such poor coaching.

They all "make" each other. If the QB is successful, regardless of which RB, WR, OL, or coaches he has, he's obviously still doing something right to make it all come together. I don't buy much into any of the "this guy made this guy" type of talk. I think you can definitely make the argument that a QB can have his stats inflated by being in a great situation, but not every QB can make the most out of those opportunities. Some guys are just bad, look at the '11 Colts when they didn't have Peyton Manning. Matt Cassel is at least good enough to start a little bit. He might not be able to win with bad receivers, or bad coaching, or beat the better defenses of the league, but at least he gives you a chance. Brad Johnson was like that, and that's about who I'd compare him to. We might not have '02 Bucs defense, but our offense has a lot of weapons. I think our defense has gotten significantly better, too.

Webbfann wrote:No offense to KSViking but his post made Cassel sound a little too much like a victim and I have a hard time seeing it that way. A QB isn't simply a product of whatever coach is manipulating his puppet strings. Coaching certainly has an impact but Cassel has to be held responsible for his performances on the field, just like any other QB, and in KC those performances were often sub-par. It definitely doesn't serve a QB well when he has to keep dealing with different offensive coordinators and different systems but I don't see too many people here forgiving Jay Cutler's mistakes over the years because of all the changes in systems and playcallers he's had to deal with... of course, if he was a member of the Vikings, the forgiveness might flow freely.

Even the staunchest Ponder abolitionists around here have cut him some slack because he had such poor coaching.[/quote]

"Ponder abolitionists"?

I'm not at all convinced that Ponder has had "such poor coaching" but even if we assume that's true, what's your point? I'm not suggesting Cassel (or Ponder or any other QB) should just be evaluated without context or that the circumstances under which they play don't impact their performance. I'm just saying that, even when mitigating circumstances are considered, they still have to be held responsible for that performance. Nobody else is making decisions for them or throwing the ball for them.

Mothman wrote: No offense to KSViking but his post made Cassel sound a little too much like a victim and I have a hard time seeing it that way. A QB isn't simply a product of whatever coach is manipulating his puppet strings. Coaching certainly has an impact but Cassel has to be held responsible for his performances on the field, just like any other QB, and in KC those performances were often sub-par. It definitely doesn't serve a QB well when he has to keep dealing with different offensive coordinators and different systems but I don't see too many people here forgiving Jay Cutler's mistakes over the years because of all the changes in systems and playcallers he's had to deal with... of course, if he was a member of the Vikings, the forgiveness might flow freely.

I think there -could- be somthing to that. Rich Gannon really comes to mind as a guy who didn't look like much with poor coaching but found the right situation and flourished. What we do know is Romeo Crennel and Todd Hailey ended up being very bad coaches. Hailey managed to screw up Big Ben even as OC of the Steelers. Meanwhile we know that Belichick guy is pretty darn good when it comes to his schemes and putting his players in a position to succeed.

I'm not saying Cassel will be amazing under Turner but I could see him being serviceable. Perhaps good enough where a powerful run game and an elite defense could be a serious contender with him anyway.

Purple bruise wrote: That is laughable if you think that a rookie QB CAN'T learn anything from 2 veteren QBs with 13 years of experience.

What can he learn from Ponder? He and Bridgewater are different. Ponder often relies on his feet to move to chains and Bridgewater is more of a pocket passer. I don't see how he can learn anything from Ponder seeing as Ponder hasn't learn much since he got here. He still plays like his scouting profile says he needs development on

Neither can he learn from Cassel. Cassel and Ponder is are just bodies there who will probably start until the coaches get comfortable with Bridgewater. What can Bridgewater learn from these two? He's already had a better college career than both of them. Especially Cassel who has never thrown a passing TD in his college career. Wasn't he a back-up or something? Cassel has his good moments but his decision making is too inconsistent and is why he'd be nothing but a back-up on good teams.

What are they going to teach him??? Accuracy??? Cassel has a completion rate of 59% and Ponder has 60.2%. While Bridgewater is coming off a 68% completion rate. Cassel was 60% in college and Ponder was 61%.

Bridgewater would gain nothing from these two. Who cares if the been in the NFL longer? If that's the case, you can say that he could also learn something from people like Matt Flynn or Tavaris Jackson for a season or two since they have a combined decade of NFL experience too.

King James wrote:
What can he learn from Ponder? He and Bridgewater are different. Ponder often relies on his feet to move to chains and Bridgewater is more of a pocket passer. I don't see how he can learn anything from Ponder seeing as Ponder hasn't learn much since he got here. He still plays like his scouting profile says he needs development on

Neither can he learn from Cassel. Cassel and Ponder is are just bodies there who will probably start until the coaches get comfortable with Bridgewater. What can Bridgewater learn from these two? He's already had a better college career than both of them. Especially Cassel who has never thrown a passing TD in his college career. Wasn't he a back-up or something? Cassel has his good moments but his decision making is too inconsistent and is why he'd be nothing but a back-up on good teams.

What are they going to teach him??? Accuracy??? Cassel has a completion rate of 59% and Ponder has 60.2%. While Bridgewater is coming off a 68% completion rate. Cassel was 60% in college and Ponder was 61%.

Bridgewater would gain nothing from these two. Who cares if the been in the NFL longer? If that's the case, you can say that he could also learn something from people like Matt Flynn or Tavaris Jackson for a season or two since they have a combined decade of NFL experience too.

Okay then. A rookie could not learn one thing from a veteren QB

mondry wrote:I think there -could- be somthing to that. Rich Gannon really comes to mind as a guy who didn't look like much with poor coaching but found the right situation and flourished.

Was Rich Gannon really poorly coached? He improved over the years and he eventually found himself in a system that was a great fit for the skill set he had developed but I don't think that means coaches like Green and Schottenheimer were just doing a poor job with him. Green was impatient though...

What we do know is Romeo Crennel and Todd Hailey ended up being very bad coaches. Hailey managed to screw up Big Ben even as OC of the Steelers.

Haley was also the coordinator of some top level offenses in Arizona and Cassel's head coach in KC when he had his best season as a pro. I don't doubt that going from Charlie Weis calling the plays to Bill Muir calling them in 2011 had some influence on Cassel's performance, but coaching is just one factor.

I'm not saying Cassel will be amazing under Turner but I could see him being serviceable. Perhaps good enough where a powerful run game and an elite defense could be a serious contender with him anyway.

I think a team with a powerful running game and an elite defense could be a contender with Ponder too but at that point, you're basically just asking the QB to be the kind of game-managing caretaker Dilfer was for the Ravens in 2000.

Mothman wrote:
I think a team with a powerful running game and an elite defense could be a contender with Ponder too but at that point, you're basically just asking the QB to be the kind of game-managing caretaker Dilfer was for the Ravens in 2000.

I don't disagree with any of that really, I'm a guy who expects Bridgewater will start at some point, most likely because the guys we do have aren't the kind of guys you just dedicate the year to and feel good about. Teddy could maybe even start from Day1 imo, so I don't have any bias towards cassel or ponder. All I'm saying is there is a catalyst for improvement and it's not even so much "musgrave bad, turner good" just that it'll be a -different- system that might be better for them. /shrug.

acousticrock wrote:Cassell and Ponder may not be able to teach Teddy much about physical skills and talent but I'm sure they have learned a few things about teamwork, nuances in the NFL, NFL schedules, leadership, handling the media, working with professional coaches, and anything behind-the-scenes that we don't see that will be beneficial for Teddy.

Nice post Acoustic. That's really what should be meant when you talk about a rookie learning from a veteran. Their work ethic, how much film they watch, seeing how the veteran leads the team and handles himself in practice, how he handles diversity. It's definitely not about Ponder saying "hey TB this is how I run real fast and I'll teach it to you!" It's about learning the mental side of things and how to be a pro.

Personally I don't think Ponder is the greatest example to be following, in his case it should be a good example of WHAT NOT DO for Teddy. Cassel seems like a good pro though.

Here is the best "apples-apples" comparison that one can get between Cassel and Ponder. While the seasonal stats have Ponder finishing with a Passer Rating of 77.9 and Cassel finishing with 81.6 (hence the belief that Cassel is "about the same" as Ponder), the Passer Ratings for this game were:

Ponder: 54.16
Cassel: 80.74

I chose this particular game as Ponder played the first half and Cassel played the second half. Same team. This eliminates (as much as possible) the differing quality of defense for the various teams the Vikings played in 2013. I don't think Cassel is a particularly great quarterback. I do think he is better than Ponder. (And if that's not a "backhanded compliment" I don't know what one is).

This level of performance (seasonal) places Cassel at 21st (when compared to team passer ratings found here.
IOW the bottom third of the league. So while he is better than Ponder, he still doesn't crack the top half of the league (IOW - he's below average) for performance. We'll see how this year plays out...

(Ponder places 23rd (seasonal) when compared to these stats just as FYI).

Just Me wrote:Here is the best "apples-apples" comparison that one can get between Cassel and Ponder. While the seasonal stats have Ponder finishing with a Passer Rating of 77.9 and Cassel finishing with 81.6 (hence the belief that Cassel is "about the same" as Ponder), the Passer Ratings for this game were:

Ponder: 54.16
Cassel: 80.74

That Bears game was the only game in which they played about a half each and Cassel was definitely better that day.

For what it's worth, in other games in which they both played, it went like this:

@Seattle:
Ponder: 53.0
Cassel: 52.7

Washington:
Ponder: 113.1
Cassel: 90.3

It doesn't get much closer than those Seattle ratings (which weren't good for either player)

Against common opponents:

@Chicago (to go with the Bears game you posted above)
Ponder: 75.3

Detroit:
Ponder: 63.1
Cassel: 73.9

This level of performance (seasonal) places Cassel at 21st (when compared to team passer ratings found here.
IOW the bottom third of the league. So while he is better than Ponder, he still doesn't crack the top half of the league (IOW - he's below average) for performance. We'll see how this year plays out...

(Ponder places 23rd (seasonal) when compared to these stats just as FYI).

Which again, shows that in many ways, they're pretty close. I think the bottom line is unless one of them improves on those ratings and plays well more consistently, the door is wide open for Bridgewater to work his way onto the field if he can impress the coaching staff.

Webbfann wrote: 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.

There were few obvious choices in this last draft IMHO. Leaving the QB they supposedly wanted all along to twist while drafting what by all accounts is a project at LB would not be a wise move regardless of how confident they were in the Cassel/Ponder juggernaut unless they had said LB rated so highly that it was obvious to them who to take. I just find it hard to believe they could have had Barr that much higher on their board, but I don't know.

What I do know is there is no contradiction in my argument. Spielman sees Cassel as his vet starter, Ponder as his vet backup, and isn't particularly excited about the long-term prospects of either, ergo the move back into the late 1st to grab the "best of what's left" at QB. I guess my point is, all other things being equal, draft the QB you covet if indeed it is a QB that you covet.

VikingLord wrote: There were few obvious choices in this last draft IMHO. Leaving the QB they supposedly wanted all along to twist while drafting what by all accounts is a project at LB would not be a wise move regardless of how confident they were in the Cassel/Ponder juggernaut unless they had said LB rated so highly that it was obvious to them who to take. I just find it hard to believe they could have had Barr that much higher on their board, but I don't know.

What I do know is there is no contradiction in my argument. Spielman sees Cassel as his vet starter, Ponder as his vet backup, and isn't particularly excited about the long-term prospects of either, ergo the move back into the late 1st to grab the "best of what's left" at QB. I guess my point is, all other things being equal, draft the QB you covet if indeed it is a QB that you covet.

Assuming they "covet" Manziel..for what we have to go off of, it sounds like they had Manziel and Bridgewater rated similarly, with a slight edge to Manziel. They probably didn't covet either of them. On the other hand, they felt Barr was too good a talent to pass up.