Vikings Message Board.Com

[quote="PurpleKoolaid] Simpson looked like a real #1 WR.[/quote]

Simpson had 2 catches for 54 yards. How does that constitute looking like a #1 receiver?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

720pete wrote:[quote="PurpleKoolaid] Simpson looked like a real #1 WR.

Simpson had 2 catches for 54 yards. How does that constitute looking like a #1 receiver?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk[/quote][/quote]

He has looked like it all year. He's made some great catches. Jennings looks like a big waste of dough so far. But then what do you expect from a Packer.

720pete wrote:[quote="PurpleKoolaid] Simpson looked like a real #1 WR.

Simpson had 2 catches for 54 yards. How does that constitute looking like a #1 receiver?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk[/quote][/quote]

Because he had to make freakish circus catches on Ponder's horrible throws on both of them.

Demi wrote: Simpson had 2 catches for 54 yards. How does that constitute looking like a #1 receiver?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[/quote]

Because he had to make freakish circus catches on Ponder's horrible throws on both of them. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

Link please to these "freakish circus catches". Maybe they just looked easier on TV.

103.9

People joke about backup quarterbacks being better than our starter. This past Sunday, Fitzpatrick led the Titans to a 14-play 80-yard touchdown drive to take the lead with about 10 seconds left. He was 30 of 42 for 320 yards 2 tds and 0 ints for the game. I don't believe for one second that the Titans have more talent than us on offense, but look at them getting it done. The scary part: They only needed 3 to tie and send it to overtime. *gasp* But they were aggressive and threw it near the end zone for the score (on a big, scary 3rd and 10, I believe, as time was running out). All of that with a backup quarterback? Playing on the road? Ugh. What are they thinking? That's just silly! Anyways, the real kicker for me is that Fitzpatrick, backup quarterback, for the Titans had a passer rating of 109.2 in that game. That was his lowest in the past three weeks. His lowest.

Fitzpatrick has been dumped from three other teams, this is his fourth team to play for already. Not really impressed with him beating the lowly Raiders but a grade school QB would obviously be a huge upgrade from what the Vikings have.
Career Stats are 99 tds, 85 ints., 77.8 rating (not so good).

MelanieMFunk wrote:103.9

People joke about backup quarterbacks being better than our starter. This past Sunday, Fitzpatrick led the Titans to a 14-play 80-yard touchdown drive to take the lead with about 10 seconds left. He was 30 of 42 for 320 yards 2 tds and 0 ints for the game. I don't believe for one second that the Titans have more talent than us on offense, but look at them getting it done. The scary part: They only needed 3 to tie and send it to overtime. *gasp* But they were aggressive and threw it in the end zone for the score (on a big, scary 3rd and 10, I believe, as time was running out). All of that with a backup quarterback? Playing on the road? Ugh. What are they thinking? That's just silly! Anyways, the real kicker for me is that Fitzpatrick, backup quarterback, for the Titans had a passer rating of 109.2 in that game. That was his lowest in the past three weeks. His lowest.

Kudos to 9 year veteran Fitzpatrick for a job well done but he did it against Jacksonville, Indianapolis and Oakland. I'm not taking anything away from him (after all, a good job is a good job) but it's worth putting those performances in perspective. For the season, against those 3 opponents, opposing QBs are averaging ratings of 100.6, 92.4 and 99.2, respectively.

Earlier this season, when Fitzpatrick started games against two much better defensive teams, Kansas City and Seattle, his ratings were 57.7 and 46.8. Not quite as impressive...

Purple bruise wrote:Not really impressed with him beating the lowly Raiders...

That's funny you say that. Do you know what I know? If Ponder had put up those same numbers, and led the Vikings to a winning touchdown drive against those same exact Raiders, you would be loving it. Lovin'. every. minute. of. it. You'd praise, praise, and praise some more. So, what's with this?

Has Ponder ever had three weeks in a row of a passer rating of 109 and above? Regardless of what Fitz has done previous to this, and how many teams he has played for, he's playing better than Ponder. He's better than our starter. That was the point. So, it's not a joke that backups are better than our starter. It's the sad truth. There are other examples around the league, too. It sucks.

Mothman wrote:Kudos to 9 year veteran Fitzpatrick for a job well done but he did it against Jacksonville, Indianapolis and Oakland. I'm not taking anything away from him (after all, a good job is a good job) but it's worth putting those performances in perspective. For the season, against those 3 opponents, opposing QBs are averaging ratings of 100.6, 92.4 and 99.2, respectively.

Earlier this season, when Fitzpatrick started games against two much better defensive teams, Kansas City and Seattle, his ratings were 57.7 and 46.8. Not quite as impressive...

I know it's against your nature to ever go out on a limb, but are you suggesting Ponder could post 109 passer ratings and above against those teams? How much money would you be willing to put on that? Are you confident that Ponder could do what Fitz did? Because I'm not. And because I'm not, I think Fitz is better. And, he's a backup. And that was the entire point.

MelanieMFunk wrote: I know it's against your nature to ever go out on a limb, but are you suggesting Ponder could post 109 passer ratings and above against those teams? How much money would you be willing to put on that? Are you confident that Ponder could do what Fitz did? Because I'm not. And because I'm not, I think Fitz is better. And, he's a backup. And that was the entire point.

Fortunately no one in the Viking organization gives a crap about what you or I think. Maybe you could contact them and see if they could trade for Fitzpatrick and lead the team to a Super Bowl

MelanieMFunk wrote: I know it's against your nature to ever go out on a limb, but are you suggesting Ponder could post 109 passer ratings and above against those teams? How much money would you be willing to put on that? Are you confident that Ponder could do what Fitz did? Because I'm not. And because I'm not, I think Fitz is better. And, he's a backup. And that was the entire point.

Did Jim or I mention Ponder at all. You seem to be facinated with the subject

MelanieMFunk wrote:I know it's against your nature to ever go out on a limb...

Is the personal shot really necessary?

... but are you suggesting Ponder could post 109 passer ratings and above against those teams?

I didn't even mention Christian Ponder in my post but I don't see any reason why he couldn't do it. He's posted ratings that high in the past.

How much money would you be willing to put on that? Are you confident that Ponder could do what Fitz did?

I wouldn't have been confident that Fitz could do what he did!

Because I'm not. And because I'm not, I think Fitz is better. And, he's a backup. And that was the entire point.

With about 6 years of additional experience, he should be better but I honestly don't care to compare them. I see no point in it other than engaging in the kind of "grass is always greener" complaining that goes on around here all the time. I'd like the Vikings to have a starting QB better than either Ponder or Fitzpatrick have been in their NFL careers so frankly, I don't care which one is better right now. It's the Cassel vs. Ponder debate all over again but involving a player who isn't even on the team.

As I said, kudos to Fitzpatrick for a job well done.

Purple bruise wrote: Did Jim or I mention Ponder at all. You seem to be facinated with the subject

Do you speak for Jim or...? I responded to each of you in separate responses for a reason. Not sure why you always have to group yourself with Jim, but it's kind of odd. Just sayin'. I get wanting to be part of the cool crowd, though. Lots of people are like that. It's coo.

And, you see, my original post that you BOTH chose to respond to was, indeed, in comparison to Ponder and our situation. Did you miss the implications? Did you miss the "103.9" that I posted before the Fitzpatrick discussion?

I can, indeed, continue to talk about Ponder and his passer rating in comparison to Fitz's. That was the point. Sorry you missed it. And no, it doesn't mean I'm "facinated" with it. You missed an "s" by the way. Not sure why you're so extreme. I don't think I talk about Ponder much at all, but somehow because of one little post, I'm borderline obsessed and seemingly "facinated"? Yeah. Okay.

MelanieMFunk wrote: Do you speak for Jim or...? I responded to each of you in separate responses for a reason. Not sure why you always have to group yourself with Jim, but it's kind of odd. Just sayin'. I get wanting to be part of the cool crowd, though. Lots of people are like that. It's coo.

And, you see, my original post that you BOTH chose to respond to was, indeed, in comparison to Ponder and our situation. Did you miss the implications? Did you miss the "103.9" that I posted before the Fitzpatrick discussion?

I can, indeed, continue to talk about Ponder and his passer rating in comparison to Fitz's. That was the point. Sorry you missed it. And no, it doesn't mean I'm "facinated" with it. You missed an "s" by the way. Not sure why you're so extreme. I don't think I talk about Ponder much at all, but somehow because of one little post, I'm borderline obsessed and seemingly "facinated"? Yeah. Okay.

Sorry that it bothers you but Jim and I are friends. You are the only one that I know that constantly tries to start crap with him. Talk about strange He is the most level headed fair person on this board, by a long shot.

I've always like fitzpatrick and would have preferred him over cassel as our back up. With this coaching staff though it's not like either would have gotten to play.