How bad will the slaughter be tomorrow?

[TheLeviathan]

  FrodaddyG said:

The main problem with Ponder is this: When he was succeeding, they were running the simplest offense in the league. Hand to Peterson. Throw high percentage passes to Percy and the receivers. Profit.

 

The problem was, if he struggled, there was nowhere to go to make the offense any simpler without actually refusing to pass the ball. Percy going down didn't help matters, but that only excuses the few games he has missed. The fact is, Ponder's only success can be derived from running an offense so stupidly simple that any half-decent QB can succeed in it. Any QB that's played in the NFL should be able to complete passes against consistent 8-man fronts. That should be a given. The fact that Ponder's been hit or miss all year (with Peterson forcing defenses to stack heavily against the run) is a pretty clear indicator that he's just not good enough to make the Vikings consistently good enough to be a serious contender. Even someone as mediocre as a real game manager (the Alex Smith example) may be enough to make the Vikings legit.

 

Well said. What's amazing to me is that when Percy was healthy and it was clear Ponder couldn't throw it to him past 5 yards he was still getting the ball and getting yardage....which is uncanny. Add to that the line somehow opening huge holes against 9 man fronts with a one dimensional offense and it's amazing this team isn't getting blanked week in and week out with his current level of play. If Percy was healthy I wouldn't hesitate to say a wildcat offense with him at QB would be better than what we are currently doing. And I think the wildcat is stupid.

[one_eyed_jack]

Speaking of the wildcat - I never thought I'd find myself typing this sentence in a jillion years - but the Vikings would have at least 1 more win, possibly more, had Tim Tebow been their starting quarterback all year.

[J-Dog Dungan]

  one_eyed_jack said:

Speaking of the wildcat - I never thought I'd find myself typing this sentence in a jillion years - but the Vikings would have at least 1 more win, possibly more, had Tim Tebow been their starting quarterback all year.

Maybe, but I think Webb is a fairly close comparison to Tebow, except he (Webb) is better.

[FrodaddyG]

  TheLeviathan said:

  FrodaddyG said:

The main problem with Ponder is this: When he was succeeding, they were running the simplest offense in the league. Hand to Peterson. Throw high percentage passes to Percy and the receivers. Profit.

 

The problem was, if he struggled, there was nowhere to go to make the offense any simpler without actually refusing to pass the ball. Percy going down didn't help matters, but that only excuses the few games he has missed. The fact is, Ponder's only success can be derived from running an offense so stupidly simple that any half-decent QB can succeed in it. Any QB that's played in the NFL should be able to complete passes against consistent 8-man fronts. That should be a given. The fact that Ponder's been hit or miss all year (with Peterson forcing defenses to stack heavily against the run) is a pretty clear indicator that he's just not good enough to make the Vikings consistently good enough to be a serious contender. Even someone as mediocre as a real game manager (the Alex Smith example) may be enough to make the Vikings legit.

 

Well said. What's amazing to me is that when Percy was healthy and it was clear Ponder couldn't throw it to him past 5 yards he was still getting the ball and getting yardage....which is uncanny. Add to that the line somehow opening huge holes against 9 man fronts with a one dimensional offense and it's amazing this team isn't getting blanked week in and week out with his current level of play. If Percy was healthy I wouldn't hesitate to say a wildcat offense with him at QB would be better than what we are currently doing. And I think the wildcat is stupid.

I'd have to go back and find the column where I saw it referenced, but I believe after 4 weeks, something like 22 of Ponder's completions were to Percy at or behind the line of scrimmage. Percy was averaging close to 10 yards per catch on those. Pretty unbelievable on the part of Percy, and would explain a fair chunk of Ponder's "impressive" early-season QB rating and completion %.

[DaveW]

  FrodaddyG said:

The main problem with Ponder is this: When he was succeeding, they were running the simplest offense in the league. Hand to Peterson. Throw high percentage passes to Percy and the receivers. Profit.

 

The problem was, if he struggled, there was nowhere to go to make the offense any simpler without actually refusing to pass the ball. Percy going down didn't help matters, but that only excuses the few games he has missed. The fact is, Ponder's only success can be derived from running an offense so stupidly simple that any half-decent QB can succeed in it. Any QB that's played in the NFL should be able to complete passes against consistent 8-man fronts. That should be a given. The fact that Ponder's been hit or miss all year (with Peterson forcing defenses to stack heavily against the run) is a pretty clear indicator that he's just not good enough to make the Vikings consistently good enough to be a serious contender. Even someone as mediocre as a real game manager (the Alex Smith example) may be enough to make the Vikings legit.

 

You call Alex Smith a mediocre game manager, yet he has like a 105 QB rating this year and a 90 or 92 last year. In addition he is something like 18-6 in his last 24 starts. If he was on the Vikings this year we would be leading the division currently.

[FrodaddyG]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  FrodaddyG said:

The main problem with Ponder is this: When he was succeeding, they were running the simplest offense in the league. Hand to Peterson. Throw high percentage passes to Percy and the receivers. Profit.

 

The problem was, if he struggled, there was nowhere to go to make the offense any simpler without actually refusing to pass the ball. Percy going down didn't help matters, but that only excuses the few games he has missed. The fact is, Ponder's only success can be derived from running an offense so stupidly simple that any half-decent QB can succeed in it. Any QB that's played in the NFL should be able to complete passes against consistent 8-man fronts. That should be a given. The fact that Ponder's been hit or miss all year (with Peterson forcing defenses to stack heavily against the run) is a pretty clear indicator that he's just not good enough to make the Vikings consistently good enough to be a serious contender. Even someone as mediocre as a real game manager (the Alex Smith example) may be enough to make the Vikings legit.

 

You call Alex Smith a mediocre game manager, yet he has like a 105 QB rating this year and a 90 or 92 last year. In addition he is something like 18-6 in his last 24 starts. If he was on the Vikings this year we would be leading the division currently.

QB rating isn't a cumulative stat. He's effective in the situations they call on him, (which isn't many) which is all the Vikings need. (Ponder had a really sweet QB rating for six weeks, too.) QB rating can be a fickle thing for a QB that shouldn't be asked to throw much more than 20 times a game.

 

Smith is obviously better than Ponder, but citing his QB rating (and W/L record, which I'd credit just as much, if not more, to his dominant defense/running game as I would to anything Smith has done) is a slight bit deceptive. Smith was on a good team the last two years, and hasn't lost games for them. Sadly, Ponder can't even do that, and the Vikes somehow managed to win a handful of games that were clearly in spite of his play, not because of it. But realistically, how many teams will be lining up for Alex Smith's services if he's available in the offseason? Only a few, because he's a game manager, and not many teams have the QB situation that's in bad enough shape that he looks like a clear upgrade.

[DaveW]

  FrodaddyG said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  FrodaddyG said:

The main problem with Ponder is this: When he was succeeding, they were running the simplest offense in the league. Hand to Peterson. Throw high percentage passes to Percy and the receivers. Profit.

 

The problem was, if he struggled, there was nowhere to go to make the offense any simpler without actually refusing to pass the ball. Percy going down didn't help matters, but that only excuses the few games he has missed. The fact is, Ponder's only success can be derived from running an offense so stupidly simple that any half-decent QB can succeed in it. Any QB that's played in the NFL should be able to complete passes against consistent 8-man fronts. That should be a given. The fact that Ponder's been hit or miss all year (with Peterson forcing defenses to stack heavily against the run) is a pretty clear indicator that he's just not good enough to make the Vikings consistently good enough to be a serious contender. Even someone as mediocre as a real game manager (the Alex Smith example) may be enough to make the Vikings legit.

 

You call Alex Smith a mediocre game manager, yet he has like a 105 QB rating this year and a 90 or 92 last year. In addition he is something like 18-6 in his last 24 starts. If he was on the Vikings this year we would be leading the division currently.

QB rating isn't a cumulative stat. He's effective in the situations they call on him, (which isn't many) which is all the Vikings need. (Ponder had a really sweet QB rating for six weeks, too.) QB rating can be a fickle thing for a QB that shouldn't be asked to throw much more than 20 times a game.

 

Smith is obviously better than Ponder, but citing his QB rating (and W/L record, which I'd credit just as much, if not more, to his dominant defense/running game as I would to anything Smith has done) is a slight bit deceptive. Smith was on a good team the last two years, and hasn't lost games for them. Sadly, Ponder can't even do that, and the Vikes somehow managed to win a handful of games that were clearly in spite of his play, not because of it. But realistically, how many teams will be lining up for Alex Smith's services if he's available in the offseason? Only a few, because he's a game manager, and not many teams have the QB situation that's in bad enough shape that he looks like a clear upgrade.

I think there will be some teams looking to bring in Smith, I really think he has some legit talent. 70% completion percentage this year, 70 QBR, had the lowest INT% in the league last year and a very low one this year as well.

 

He is exactly what the Vikes need. A guy who can throw the ball 25 times a game and complete 17-20 of them giving you about 200 yards a game.

 

I agree his "team" helped him out a bit, but his WR corp is pretty "meh", I think he is a bit better then the mediocre tag you throw out there. On this team he would be perfect, we would have certainly won the Packers, Redskins and Colts games with him(or honestly anyone) at the helm.

[FrodaddyG]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

I think there will be some teams looking to bring in Smith, I really think he has some legit talent. 70% completion percentage this year, 70 QBR, had the lowest INT% in the league last year and a very low one this year as well.

 

He is exactly what the Vikes need. A guy who can throw the ball 25 times a game and complete 17-20 of them giving you about 200 yards a game.

 

I agree his "team" helped him out a bit, but his WR corp is pretty "meh", I think he is a bit better then the mediocre tag you throw out there. On this team he would be perfect, we would have certainly won the Packers, Redskins and Colts games with him(or honestly anyone) at the helm.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. Smith is far and away the type of guy the Vikes should be trying to bring in. They aren't going to find a franchise guy on the open market, but Smith can do enough to make them competitive.

 

I think we're only at odds over the mediocre tag. He's succeeded the most when he's had to do the least. When he's had to try and shoulder the load with a more open offense, he's been unremarkable at best and bordered on awful during his first 5-6 years. Really, if not for Harbaugh thinking he could reclaim his career, he may have been out of the league by now, or holding a clipboard somewhere (else). It's why many teams with longer-term rebuilding plans won't look at him, but someone like the Vikes (who may simply need a QB to not lose the game for them), would be wise to snap him up and hope he can keep his 70% completions on limited attempts going forward. All we're disagreeing on is the mediocre tag, which I'll stand by. He's had two respectable years for a good team that followed 6 years of that same team being terrible with him at the helm. (When he wasn't playing poorly enough to lose his job to the likes of J.T. O'Sullivan, Shaun Hill, and Trent Dilfer.)

[Badsmerf]

  J-Dog Dungan said:

  one_eyed_jack said:

Speaking of the wildcat - I never thought I'd find myself typing this sentence in a jillion years - but the Vikings would have at least 1 more win, possibly more, had Tim Tebow been their starting quarterback all year.

Maybe, but I think Webb is a fairly close comparison to Tebow, except he (Webb) is better.

 

No, Webb is not a fairly close comparison. Tebow has actually had sustained success and won a big playoff game on the road. Can't compare the two just because they are both athletic.