PDA

View Full Version : Peterson eager to see Ponder in action



Marrdro
06-27-2011, 04:47 PM
I really dont know much about the guy," Peterson told ESPN while visiting its headquarters in the middle of the month. "Ive heard nothing but good things about him. Ive watched him a little bit at Florida State. One thing I have noticed is hes smart with the ball, hes very accurate and just taking the surrounding cast we have as far as receivers -- Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, [Visanthe] Shiancoe -- I feel like hell be able to do enough to get us there. We all have our part to do to contribute. Im definitely going to do my part. So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds.



Peterson eager to see Ponder in action
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/124542044.html)
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 04:52 PM
ummm... he never said that. In fact, this is the closest quote you can get that you twisted into carrying a QB:

"So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds."

In Peterson's mind, that means rushing for 2500 yards so he doesn't have to throw.

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 05:02 PM
ON a Semi-related note: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82080896/article/vikings-ponder-wants-to-start-but-willing-to-learn-from-veteran?module=HP_headlines


"Obviously, I think everyone in my position would love to start Week 1," Ponder told the station last week. "Its the competitor in me, and something Ive always dreamed of was starting in the NFL and I want to do it ASAP. But obviously there are some reasons behind bringing a guy in and obviously theres some definite pros to it. If they still bring in a guy, its going to be someone who knows what hes doing. It will give me a lot to learn from and help me out.

I thought it wasn't the Vet's job to help young players out?

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 05:10 PM
ummm... he never said that. In fact, this is the closest quote you can get that you twisted into carrying a QB:

"So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds."

In Peterson's mind, that means rushing for 2500 yards so he doesn't have to throw.
Yea, like I'd have to work reall hard to twist that. :lol:

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 05:12 PM
ummm... he never said that. In fact, this is the closest quote you can get that you twisted into carrying a QB:

"So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds."

In Peterson's mind, that means rushing for 2500 yards so he doesn't have to throw.
Yea, like I'd have to work reall hard to twist that. :lol:

Again, very open-ended statement.

Maybe he means helping him learn the plays? (Oh right, vets don't help rooks).

I'm willing to bet, it's more to do with him thinking he's easily the best player in the league (he does) and will make any QB look good.

but another thing you should look at int he quote


So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him

There's no I in team. Meaning, he's not saying the team can carry him, he's only saying he's gonna do waht he can to help. No more, no less.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 05:13 PM
ON a Semi-related note: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82080896/article/vikings-ponder-wants-to-start-but-willing-to-learn-from-veteran?module=HP_headlines


"Obviously, I think everyone in my position would love to start Week 1," Ponder told the station last week. "Its the competitor in me, and something Ive always dreamed of was starting in the NFL and I want to do it ASAP. But obviously there are some reasons behind bringing a guy in and obviously theres some definite pros to it. If they still bring in a guy, its going to be someone who knows what hes doing. It will give me a lot to learn from and help me out.

I thought it wasn't the Vet's job to help young players out?
Playing Madden has you confused again.

Let me help get you back on track.....

Coaches coach....Players play. Coaches teach the scheme and prep ALL the players for the upcoming game after they spend the Mon/Tue in coaches meetings putting together the weekly game plan.

What a Vet brings to the table is how to act like a pro when it comes to getting ready, especially when no coaches are around (i.e. Mon/Tues) and there is film to study, lifting to do, etc etc etc.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 05:16 PM
ON a Semi-related note: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82080896/article/vikings-ponder-wants-to-start-but-willing-to-learn-from-veteran?module=HP_headlines


"Obviously, I think everyone in my position would love to start Week 1," Ponder told the station last week. "Its the competitor in me, and something Ive always dreamed of was starting in the NFL and I want to do it ASAP. But obviously there are some reasons behind bringing a guy in and obviously theres some definite pros to it. If they still bring in a guy, its going to be someone who knows what hes doing. It will give me a lot to learn from and help me out.

I thought it wasn't the Vet's job to help young players out?
Playing Madden has you confused again.
enlighten me, in what way?

Let me help get you back on track.....

Coaches coach....Players play. Coaches teach the scheme and prep ALL the players for the upcoming game after they spend the Mon/Tue in coaches meetings putting together the weekly game plan.
Ah, but in madden, there is absolutely no player to player interaction. No chemistry, no guidance, certainly no coaching. so I'm not sure where you're pulling this crap from.


What a Vet brings to the table is how to act like a pro when it comes to getting ready, especially when no coaches are around (i.e. Mon/Tues) and there is film to study, lifting to do, etc etc etc.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

Apparently, considering most people, including current and former players will tell you that vets DO help young players out with not only film review, how to act like a pro, etc. but with actually learning the scheme, player tendencies, and how to play the position.


But of course, you conveniently ignore them. As usual.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 05:31 PM
ummm... he never said that. In fact, this is the closest quote you can get that you twisted into carrying a QB:

"So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds."

In Peterson's mind, that means rushing for 2500 yards so he doesn't have to throw.
Yea, like I'd have to work reall hard to twist that. :lol:

Again, very open-ended statement.

Maybe he means helping him learn the plays? (Oh right, vets don't help rooks).

I'm willing to bet, it's more to do with him thinking he's easily the best player in the league (he does) and will make any QB look good.

but another thing you should look at int he quote


So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him

There's no I in team. Meaning, he's not saying the team can carry him, he's only saying he's gonna do waht he can to help. No more, no less.
But there is an I in team if you take his statement in total instead of just looking at 2 words....


just taking the surrounding cast we have as far as receivers -- Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, [Visanthe] Shiancoe
Surrounding cast.......WE.......

LOL, again, not hard to twist.

Sounds like a total team effort my friend.

ejmat
06-27-2011, 06:10 PM
WOW! It's funny how a simple article can turn into a debate of "I think...." and "Maybe...."

Bottom line when it comes to this is, yes a team would have to carry a young QB just as the Jets have done and the Steelers did for Ben in his rookie season. But that doesn't mean the QB doesn't have to do their share such as manage the game, be careful with the ball and make a few passes to keep the defense honest. It is a TEAM effort especially espcially when there is a young QB in the mix. A vet still needs the TEAM to win but some can help win games moreso than a younger QB most of hte time.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 06:18 PM
WOW! It's funny how a simple article can turn into a debate of "I think...." and "Maybe...."

Comeon. Thats what the articles are supposed to do. Stimulate "DISCUSSION". Not my fault bleed likes to "DEBATE".;)


Bottom line when it comes to this is, yes a team would have to carry a young QB just as the Jets have done and the Steelers did for Ben in his rookie season. But that doesn't mean the QB doesn't have to do their share such as manage the game, be careful with the ball and make a few passes to keep the defense honest. It is a TEAM effort especially espcially when there is a young QB in the mix. A vet still needs the TEAM to win but some can help win games moreso than a younger QB most of hte time.
Agree 100%.

One thing to "Ponder" though, with respect to the Jets anyways, is the QB did make a butt load of mistakes and the defense still bailed him out.

I'm kindof hoping we will see that this year if young Ponder does have a few gaffs, cause he is going to.

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 06:23 PM
WOW! It's funny how a simple article can turn into a debate of "I think...." and "Maybe...."

Comeon. Thats what the articles are supposed to do. Stimulate "DISCUSSION". Not my fault bleed likes to "DEBATE".;)

Oh bullshit, we've had the "DISCUSSION" in many other threads.

A comment like this
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

has no purpose other than to get a reaction and start an argument (Call it waht you will, it is what it is).



Bottom line when it comes to this is, yes a team would have to carry a young QB just as the Jets have done and the Steelers did for Ben in his rookie season. But that doesn't mean the QB doesn't have to do their share such as manage the game, be careful with the ball and make a few passes to keep the defense honest. It is a TEAM effort especially espcially when there is a young QB in the mix. A vet still needs the TEAM to win but some can help win games moreso than a younger QB most of hte time.
Agree 100%.

One thing to "Ponder" though, with respect to the Jets anyways, is the QB did make a butt load of mistakes and the defense still bailed him out.

I'm kindof hoping we will see that this year if young Ponder does have a few gaffs, cause he is going to.

I would love to see our Defense be strong enough to bail out Ponder from his inevitable mistakes. I'm not sure they're quite at that level. IMO our defense has been overachieving the past two years. They don't quite seem as dominant.

ejmat
06-27-2011, 07:35 PM
WOW! It's funny how a simple article can turn into a debate of "I think...." and "Maybe...."

Comeon. Thats what the articles are supposed to do. Stimulate "DISCUSSION". Not my fault bleed likes to "DEBATE".;)

Oh bullshit, we've had the "DISCUSSION" in many other threads.

A comment like this
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

has no purpose other than to get a reaction and start an argument (Call it waht you will, it is what it is).



Bottom line when it comes to this is, yes a team would have to carry a young QB just as the Jets have done and the Steelers did for Ben in his rookie season. But that doesn't mean the QB doesn't have to do their share such as manage the game, be careful with the ball and make a few passes to keep the defense honest. It is a TEAM effort especially espcially when there is a young QB in the mix. A vet still needs the TEAM to win but some can help win games moreso than a younger QB most of hte time.
Agree 100%.

One thing to "Ponder" though, with respect to the Jets anyways, is the QB did make a butt load of mistakes and the defense still bailed him out.

I'm kindof hoping we will see that this year if young Ponder does have a few gaffs, cause he is going to.

I would love to see our Defense be strong enough to bail out Ponder from his inevitable mistakes. I'm not sure they're quite at that level. IMO our defense has been overachieving the past two years. They don't quite seem as dominant.

Agree with both of you. I would love for our defense to be as dominate as the Jets have. They have the talent but they have to put it together. If that is the case, I would be more than happy to see Ponder start week 1 with the offensive cast. The only issue I would have is the OL. For a rookie QB that could be a huge problem.

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 07:45 PM
WOW! It's funny how a simple article can turn into a debate of "I think...." and "Maybe...."

Comeon. Thats what the articles are supposed to do. Stimulate "DISCUSSION". Not my fault bleed likes to "DEBATE".;)

Oh bullshit, we've had the "DISCUSSION" in many other threads.

A comment like this
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

has no purpose other than to get a reaction and start an argument (Call it waht you will, it is what it is).



Bottom line when it comes to this is, yes a team would have to carry a young QB just as the Jets have done and the Steelers did for Ben in his rookie season. But that doesn't mean the QB doesn't have to do their share such as manage the game, be careful with the ball and make a few passes to keep the defense honest. It is a TEAM effort especially espcially when there is a young QB in the mix. A vet still needs the TEAM to win but some can help win games moreso than a younger QB most of hte time.
Agree 100%.

One thing to "Ponder" though, with respect to the Jets anyways, is the QB did make a butt load of mistakes and the defense still bailed him out.

I'm kindof hoping we will see that this year if young Ponder does have a few gaffs, cause he is going to.

I would love to see our Defense be strong enough to bail out Ponder from his inevitable mistakes. I'm not sure they're quite at that level. IMO our defense has been overachieving the past two years. They don't quite seem as dominant.

Agree with both of you. I would love for our defense to be as dominate as the Jets have. They have the talent but they have to put it together. If that is the case, I would be more than happy to see Ponder start week 1 with the offensive cast. The only issue I would have is the OL. For a rookie QB that could be a huge problem.

Good point, the Jets ALSO just so happen to ahve one of the better O Lines in the game today. They can give him time to wait for his receivers to get WIDE open and hopefully not drop it in the endzone.

Caine
06-27-2011, 07:48 PM
I really dont know much about the guy," Peterson told ESPN while visiting its headquarters in the middle of the month. "Ive heard nothing but good things about him. Ive watched him a little bit at Florida State. One thing I have noticed is hes smart with the ball, hes very accurate and just taking the surrounding cast we have as far as receivers -- Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, [Visanthe] Shiancoe -- I feel like hell be able to do enough to get us there. We all have our part to do to contribute. Im definitely going to do my part. So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds.



Peterson eager to see Ponder in action
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/124542044.html)
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

There is a HUGE difference between "making it easy" for someone and "Carrying" someone.

Greg Jennings and Donald Driver "make it easy" for Rodgers. Do you think they carry him?

Caine

12purplepride28
06-27-2011, 07:55 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

Caine
06-27-2011, 07:57 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 07:57 PM
You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

Just bumped you up a few columns in the 'ol spreadsheet my friend. :D

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:02 PM
Apparently, considering most people, including current and former players will tell you that vets DO help young players out with not only film review, how to act like a pro, etc. but with actually learning the scheme, player tendencies, and how to play the position.


But of course, you conveniently ignore them. As usual.
I do nothing of the sort. What I don't agree with is when someone says that the Noodle was coaching up the players and running the offense when in fact he wasn't.

Player tendencies. How do they figure out player tendencies? Game tape?

Learning the scheme. Coaches do that more so than players. Thats what they are on the staff for. If they didn't do it, then why do the owners pay them? Surely they don't pay them to get coffee or juice for the players.

What I will agree to is the film study stuff/acting like a pro things meantioned above along with some players are very good at being coaches on the field. Those are the ones that you see step into a coaching position right after they quit the game (or the game quits them).

Very few of those are players who want to teach one of the rooks to take their jobs.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:05 PM
WOW! It's funny how a simple article can turn into a debate of "I think...." and "Maybe...."

Comeon. Thats what the articles are supposed to do. Stimulate "DISCUSSION". Not my fault bleed likes to "DEBATE".;)

Oh bullshit, we've had the "DISCUSSION" in many other threads.

A comment like this
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

has no purpose other than to get a reaction and start an argument (Call it waht you will, it is what it is).



Bottom line when it comes to this is, yes a team would have to carry a young QB just as the Jets have done and the Steelers did for Ben in his rookie season. But that doesn't mean the QB doesn't have to do their share such as manage the game, be careful with the ball and make a few passes to keep the defense honest. It is a TEAM effort especially espcially when there is a young QB in the mix. A vet still needs the TEAM to win but some can help win games moreso than a younger QB most of hte time.
Agree 100%.

One thing to "Ponder" though, with respect to the Jets anyways, is the QB did make a butt load of mistakes and the defense still bailed him out.

I'm kindof hoping we will see that this year if young Ponder does have a few gaffs, cause he is going to.

I would love to see our Defense be strong enough to bail out Ponder from his inevitable mistakes. I'm not sure they're quite at that level. IMO our defense has been overachieving the past two years. They don't quite seem as dominant.

Agree with both of you. I would love for our defense to be as dominate as the Jets have. They have the talent but they have to put it together. If that is the case, I would be more than happy to see Ponder start week 1 with the offensive cast. The only issue I would have is the OL. For a rookie QB that could be a huge problem.

Good point, the Jets ALSO just so happen to ahve one of the better O Lines in the game today. They can give him time to wait for his receivers to get WIDE open and hopefully not drop it in the endzone.
What about the Steelers and Big Ben then? They still don't have a decent OL and his first two seasons he pretty much sucked it up and the defense still bailed him out.

Besides, it isn't like we don't have a decent OL. It was ranked middle of the league with a heck of alot of backups playing last year.

In short, I think if we have our starters back (plus maybe a new C) healthy the OL won't be young Ponders problem.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:08 PM
I really dont know much about the guy," Peterson told ESPN while visiting its headquarters in the middle of the month. "Ive heard nothing but good things about him. Ive watched him a little bit at Florida State. One thing I have noticed is hes smart with the ball, hes very accurate and just taking the surrounding cast we have as far as receivers -- Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, [Visanthe] Shiancoe -- I feel like hell be able to do enough to get us there. We all have our part to do to contribute. Im definitely going to do my part. So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds.



Peterson eager to see Ponder in action
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/124542044.html)
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

There is a HUGE difference between "making it easy" for someone and "Carrying" someone.

Greg Jennings and Donald Driver "make it easy" for Rodgers. Do you think they carry him?

Caine
An excellent point. Problem is, atleast for me, a QB that sat on the bench learning the game from the bench, shouldn't really need alot of carrying IMHO.

Now if he was thrown to the wolves as a rook, yes, I expect they would have carried him a bit.

Coming off the bench, they helped make it easy for him, but last year he actually made them look pretty good. Kindof how one would expect to see a QB mature.

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 08:09 PM
Apparently, considering most people, including current and former players will tell you that vets DO help young players out with not only film review, how to act like a pro, etc. but with actually learning the scheme, player tendencies, and how to play the position.


But of course, you conveniently ignore them. As usual.
I do nothing of the sort. What I don't agree with is when someone says that the Noodle was coaching up the players and running the offense when in fact he wasn't.

Player tendencies. How do they figure out player tendencies? Game tape?

By player tendencies, although not well explained I guess, I was talking more about how the receivers should run their routes. One thing that I remember was early on, one of Favre's first games, they were showing Harvin running some routes, seams I believe, and showing how Favre was throwing into a spot he expected Harvin to go, but Harvin either wasn't ready, or was in the wrong position. Working on things like that with a QB is extremely important. It's much easier when you have a guy who knows the scheme already helping you, rather than say having a Ponder and a Rookie Harvin trying to figure it out together.



Learning the scheme. Coaches do that more so than players. Thats what they are on the staff for. If they didn't do it, then why do the owners pay them? Surely they don't pay them to get coffee or juice for the players.

Yes, they do. That's what the hours of film study, playbook study, and unit meetings are for. However, in practice if Favre noticed Rice or Harvin was doing something wrong he woudln't say anything? There are quotes from both the receivers, and even Peterson stating that Favre really helped them all learn some finer points of the offense, and how to play the game. That's some insight that a guy like Ponder doesn't have at this point.



Very few of those are players who want to teach one of the rooks to take their jobs.

No, but the ones that do, normally realize their role on the team. THe ones that are either career backups, or old enought o know they won't be around too much longer. We saw Favre and TJ/Webb talking on the sideline alot last season, it likely wasn't about the hockey game last night. He even said, if anyone really has any questions or needs help with anything, he's always willing to help where he can. Yet when that is mentioned, you ignore it, and go back to when he claimed it wasn't his job to teach Rodgers.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:10 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.
Still miffed I see. Probably why you seem to think that I don't think Ponder would be involved.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:11 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine
Don't worry my friend. I'm still just as pissed at him as he probably is at me.

Caine
06-27-2011, 08:21 PM
I really dont know much about the guy," Peterson told ESPN while visiting its headquarters in the middle of the month. "Ive heard nothing but good things about him. Ive watched him a little bit at Florida State. One thing I have noticed is hes smart with the ball, hes very accurate and just taking the surrounding cast we have as far as receivers -- Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, [Visanthe] Shiancoe -- I feel like hell be able to do enough to get us there. We all have our part to do to contribute. Im definitely going to do my part. So Im going to do the best I can to make it easy on him [being as how] hes a first-year guy and well see how he responds.



Peterson eager to see Ponder in action
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/124542044.html)
Hmmmmmmm, who would have thought......A team that can carry a young QB if they all do their jobs.

What a novel concept.

There is a HUGE difference between "making it easy" for someone and "Carrying" someone.

Greg Jennings and Donald Driver "make it easy" for Rodgers. Do you think they carry him?

Caine
An excellent point. Problem is, atleast for me, a QB that sat on the bench learning the game from the bench, shouldn't really need alot of carrying IMHO.

Now if he was thrown to the wolves as a rook, yes, I expect they would have carried him a bit.

Coming off the bench, they helped make it easy for him, but last year he actually made them look pretty good. Kindof how one would expect to see a QB mature.

See, my point is, and always has been when you've thrown that silly "carried by the team" argument, that no one should have to carry anyone.

Sure, elite players make it EASIER for other players, but if someone is being "carried", they're dead weight. No one needs dead weight.

It's funny that you can't admit to Allen and Williams "carrying" Edwards, but want to label Favre as - essentially - dead weight in almost every scenario.

Bottom line, no one is going to CARRY Ponder. He'll either contribute or he won't. Whether he gets 3 years of bench time or 5 minutes of prep work, the MOMENT HE TOUCHES THE FIELD the clock starts ticking. There are NO excuses in the NFL...especially as the QB. You do not get to be a project for 5 years and still have people state, "Wait, he still might pan out"....

If Ponder starts, he has to perform. He has to carry his weight. Immediately. He doesn't have to be a Pro-Bowler right away...but he has to be able to stand on his own two feet.

Caine

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:29 PM
By player tendencies, although not well explained I guess, I was talking more about how the receivers should run their routes. One thing that I remember was early on, one of Favre's first games, they were showing Harvin running some routes, seams I believe, and showing how Favre was throwing into a spot he expected Harvin to go, but Harvin either wasn't ready, or was in the wrong position. Working on things like that with a QB is extremely important. It's much easier when you have a guy who knows the scheme already helping you, rather than say having a Ponder and a Rookie Harvin trying to figure it out together.

That, atleast in my book, is what is normally refered to as "Establishing Timing".

It isn't the QB teaching the kid how to play the game. Its teaching him that when a QB takes a 3 step drop (cause they both recognize the blitz) the kid should run a 7 step stem on his route instead of the planned 14 step stem.

Timing...


Yes, they do. That's what the hours of film study, playbook study, and unit meetings are for. However, in practice if Favre noticed Rice or Harvin was doing something wrong he woudln't say anything? There are quotes from both the receivers, and even Peterson stating that Favre really helped them all learn some finer points of the offense, and how to play the game. That's some insight that a guy like Ponder doesn't have at this point.
And why they need to work on it. Back to the timing thing. You wanna know why TJ and AD clanged knees? Wasn't cause they didn't know what to do, its cause they had lost the finer point of executing the play.

Timing.


No, but the ones that do, normally realize their role on the team. THe ones that are either career backups, or old enought o know they won't be around too much longer. We saw Favre and TJ/Webb talking on the sideline alot last season, it likely wasn't about the hockey game last night. He even said, if anyone really has any questions or needs help with anything, he's always willing to help where he can. Yet when that is mentioned, you ignore it, and go back to when he claimed it wasn't his job to teach Rodgers.
I have never ignored it.

I just said that he realized how much shit he took for it from his comments to Rodgers and his actions on the Jets that he changed when he got to the Vikings.

Funny how that can be construed as ignored in your book. Maybe its cause you ignored my response. :P

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 08:44 PM
See, my point is, and always has been when you've thrown that silly "carried by the team" argument, that no one should have to carry anyone.

Sure, elite players make it EASIER for other players, but if someone is being "carried", they're dead weight. No one needs dead weight.

........snip.......

Bottom line, no one is going to CARRY Ponder. He'll either contribute or he won't. Whether he gets 3 years of bench time or 5 minutes of prep work, the MOMENT HE TOUCHES THE FIELD the clock starts ticking. There are NO excuses in the NFL...especially as the QB. You do not get to be a project for 5 years and still have people state, "Wait, he still might pan out"....

If Ponder starts, he has to perform. He has to carry his weight. Immediately. He doesn't have to be a Pro-Bowler right away...but he has to be able to stand on his own two feet.

Caine
Your gonna laugh when you read this if you bare in mind that I'm typing it for the second time........

Anyways,

One thing thats funny about discussing the game via the internet, is sometimes you say something like "Carry" to shorten your typing time, when in fact your really saying that a team will hide (WR making a great catch) or eliminate (Defense getting the ball back without letting the other team score after a stupid turnover) a young QB's mistakes.

With that in mind, your comments above aren't really any different than my comments, other than I choose to type "Carry" instead of all that and hope that the person I'm discussing the topic with is assume that is what I mean.

If we were in person, of course, I could ramble on and on about what I think young Ponders role will be and how the team will help him hide or eliminate those mistakes.


It's funny that you can't admit to Allen and Williams "carrying" Edwards, but want to label Favre as - essentially - dead weight in almost every scenario.


I would readily admit that they are carring Ray, however, only if they were playing up to that level. Of late they haven't. Truth of the matter is, they are actually playing about at Ray level with some flashes.

Which, by the way, isn't a bad thing for most players. But, for me, atleast K-dubb and JA shouldn't be playing down to that level.

Edit....almost forgot., why bring the Noodle into it. You know I am not a rational man when it comes to that Asswhipe. Its my failing in life. Atleast I admit it.

......I hope it posts this time cause I'm not typing this out again.

Freakout
06-28-2011, 02:06 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

He better watch it. Marrdo might send him a threatening private message.

Last time I called him a hypocrite he got upset and sent me a private message telling me he didn't appreciate being called names. Which proved me right with the way he likes to call everyone he dislikes little cute grade school quality names.

Apparently Musgrave is his new target.

singersp
06-28-2011, 02:37 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 03:13 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Purple Floyd
06-28-2011, 03:17 AM
You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

Just bumped you up a few columns in the 'ol spreadsheet my friend. :D

I just spit coffee on my keyboard.

Purple Floyd
06-28-2011, 03:22 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 03:25 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

Yep. Despite what Marrdro will tell you, a good Fullback helped Peterson a whole lot. He said himself he credits Richardson more than any other player for helping him out as a rookie

12purplepride28
06-28-2011, 11:11 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine
Don't worry my friend. I'm still just as pissed at him as he probably is at me.

What am I supposed to be mad at you about? There's a difference between being mad and being fed up. I don't hate you or anything, I just disagree with most everything you say. But it would be boring here if we all saw things clearly and were right :laugh: :laugh:

12purplepride28
06-28-2011, 11:30 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

So you're disagreeing with that statement? If you disagree with that statement then I'd have to say you don't know much about football, which is something I can't say about you. He was a rookie that year and his average was helped by enormous games against SD and CHI. So when we're picking teams you can take the shitty QB and I'll take the good one and knock yourself out with the "better average".

singersp
06-28-2011, 02:09 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

So you're disagreeing with that statement? If you disagree with that statement then I'd have to say you don't know much about football, which is something I can't say about you. He was a rookie that year and his average was helped by enormous games against SD and CHI. So when we're picking teams you can take the shitty QB and I'll take the good one and knock yourself out with the "better average".

I don't disagree with it totally, but am trying to point out that it isn't always the case or isn't as cut & dried as that statement tends to make it. You need to look at the entire picture and take everything into account as a whole.

2007 was the year TJ started. Surely you don't believe he attained his career best average due to a good QB behind center? It wasn't due to our sucktacular O-line either.

Also, regardless of how good or how poor the QB behind center was performing, the box was still stacked against AD, regardless of the claims that acquiring Favre as our QB would alleviate that.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 02:17 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

So you're disagreeing with that statement? If you disagree with that statement then I'd have to say you don't know much about football, which is something I can't say about you. He was a rookie that year and his average was helped by enormous games against SD and CHI. So when we're picking teams you can take the shitty QB and I'll take the good one and knock yourself out with the "better average".

I don't disagree with it totally, but am trying to point out that it isn't always the case or isn't as cut & dried as that statement tends to make it. You need to look at the entire picture and take everything into account as a whole.

2007 was the year TJ started. Surely you don't believe he attained his career best average due to a good QB behind center? It wasn't due to our sucktacular O-line either.

Also, regardless of how good or how poor the QB behind center was performing, the box was still stacked against AD, regardless of the claims that acquiring Favre as our QB would alleviate that.

I do believe alot of Peterson's early success was due to the surprise factor.

he was a rookie, and although people thought he'd be good, no way they thought he'd be THAT good.

I seem to recall early on his average was around 7 yards per carry, and as the season wore on it dipped down as teams learned how to at least slow the guy down.

singersp
06-28-2011, 02:18 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

It may have been our best RUN blocking year in Childress tenure, but it certainly wasn't a stellar O-Line. Cook was a turnstile & Marcus Johnson wasn't anything to write home about. IMO, Artis Hicks was better than Cook or Johnson.

Even in Favre's great 2009 passing year, which should have alleviated the stacking of the box & allowed AD to gain high YPC, he did not attain the same YPC he did in 2007.

So, a good QB doesn't necessarily make it easier on the RB.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 02:25 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

It may have been our best RUN blocking year in Childress tenure, but it certainly wasn't a stellar O-Line. Cook was a turnstile & Marcus Johnson wasn't anything to write home about. IMO, Artis Hicks was better than Cook or Johnson.

Even in Favre's great 2009 passing year, which should have alleviated the stacking of the box & allowed AD to gain high YPC, he did not attain the same YPC he did in 2007.

So, a good QB doesn't necessarily make it easier on the RB.

I think however, it's safe to say if you have the same performance from your OL, putting a good QB under center will open things up for the RB quite a bit more.

Our OL has consistently regressed every year since Chilly took over. It was tolerable in 2007, it was god-awful last year. in 07, Peterson had running room, this year, he seemed to get swallowed up more often than not.

singersp
06-28-2011, 02:29 PM
I seem to recall early on his average was around 7 yards per carry, and as the season wore on it dipped down as teams learned how to at least slow the guy down.

That's when they started stacking the box more.

They also figured out how predictable our offense was. If AD was in there on 3rd down, the chances of it being a run were extremely high due to AD's piss-poor pass blocking abilities & his mediocre pass catching abilities.

If C-Tay was in there on 3rd down, the chances of it being a pass was extremely high.

If C-Tay was in there on any down, the chances of it being a pass was still high.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 02:32 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

He better watch it. Marrdo might send him a threatening private message.

Last time I called him a hypocrite he got upset and sent me a private message telling me he didn't appreciate being called names. Which proved me right with the way he likes to call everyone he dislikes little cute grade school quality names.

Apparently Musgrave is his new target.
Some names are bad. A hypocrite is one. Typing a coaches name wrong by using one letter is a bit different.

By the way, I always take things offline instead of airing dirty laundry out for all to see.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 02:34 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine
Don't worry my friend. I'm still just as pissed at him as he probably is at me.

What am I supposed to be mad at you about? There's a difference between being mad and being fed up. I don't hate you or anything, I just disagree with most everything you say. But it would be boring here if we all saw things clearly and were right :laugh: :laugh:
Nothing wrong with disagreeing. Use the opportunity to try to correct me if you think I'm wrong. I will change my mind at times.

singersp
06-28-2011, 02:42 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

It may have been our best RUN blocking year in Childress tenure, but it certainly wasn't a stellar O-Line. Cook was a turnstile & Marcus Johnson wasn't anything to write home about. IMO, Artis Hicks was better than Cook or Johnson.

Even in Favre's great 2009 passing year, which should have alleviated the stacking of the box & allowed AD to gain high YPC, he did not attain the same YPC he did in 2007.

So, a good QB doesn't necessarily make it easier on the RB.

I think however, it's safe to say if you have the same performance from your OL, putting a good QB under center will open things up for the RB quite a bit more.

Our OL has consistently regressed every year since Chilly took over. It was tolerable in 2007, it was god-awful last year. in 07, Peterson had running room, this year, he seemed to get swallowed up more often than not.

It all depends on the RB in question. AD will always draw the respect & coverage, especially in a WCO system, just as it did in 2009.

In a high-powered passing offense, with a good QB, coupled with a deep threat WR, without a doubt that would be true.

The OL regressed IMO, after we lost Birk. The loss of Richardson & teams figuring out how to stop AD were also huge factors in the drop-off in his YPC. I can't attribute it all to the O-line. Losing Hicks was definitely detrimental to our O-line as well

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 02:51 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

It may have been our best RUN blocking year in Childress tenure, but it certainly wasn't a stellar O-Line. Cook was a turnstile & Marcus Johnson wasn't anything to write home about. IMO, Artis Hicks was better than Cook or Johnson.

Even in Favre's great 2009 passing year, which should have alleviated the stacking of the box & allowed AD to gain high YPC, he did not attain the same YPC he did in 2007.

So, a good QB doesn't necessarily make it easier on the RB.

I think however, it's safe to say if you have the same performance from your OL, putting a good QB under center will open things up for the RB quite a bit more.

Our OL has consistently regressed every year since Chilly took over. It was tolerable in 2007, it was god-awful last year. in 07, Peterson had running room, this year, he seemed to get swallowed up more often than not.

It all depends on the RB in question. AD will always draw the respect & coverage, especially in a WCO system, just as it did in 2009.

In a high-powered passing offense, with a good QB, coupled with a deep threat WR, without a doubt that would be true.

The OL regressed IMO, after we lost Birk. The loss of Richardson & teams figuring out how to stop AD were also huge factors in the drop-off in his YPC. I can't attribute it all to the O-line. Losing Hicks was definitely detrimental to our O-line as well

That, plus I think we were doing a better job of downfield blocking in 07. Lots of long gains could be attributed to good blocking by our receivers allowing Peterson that extra bit of room to make a move.


Plus, call me crazy, but I think Peterson was faster in 07.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 02:52 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

Yep. Despite what Marrdro will tell you, a good Fullback helped Peterson a whole lot. He said himself he credits Richardson more than any other player for helping him out as a rookie
Don't misquote AD my friend. He gave T-rich credit, but it wasn't for what he did on the field.

For me, AD's best work wasn't 2007. Teams really didn't have alot on him. What he did in 2008 was remarkable. Teams had tape to watch, were set to stop him and he still got it done, to the tune of over 1700 yards.

Last year was right up there as well. Mostly cause I think he started to really get the handle on the hole game, especially ball control.

I have a sneaky feeling that we will finally see his best effort. Blocking/Running/Catching, all rolled into one back.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 02:59 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

Yep. Despite what Marrdro will tell you, a good Fullback helped Peterson a whole lot. He said himself he credits Richardson more than any other player for helping him out as a rookie
Don't misquote AD my friend. He gave T-rich credit, but it wasn't for what he did on the field.

For me, AD's best work wasn't 2007. Teams really didn't have alot on him. What he did in 2008 was remarkable. Teams had tape to watch, were set to stop him and he still got it done, to the tune of over 1700 yards.

Last year was right up there as well. Mostly cause I think he started to really get the handle on the hole game, especially ball control.

I have a sneaky feeling that we will finally see his best effort. Blocking/Running/Catching, all rolled into one back.

Apart from that first sentence, I'd agree. I thought last year was AD's best season yet, despite the fact his total numbers weren't quite up there.

The way he ran, and the amount of work he had to do by himself was truly incredible. He was running like a man posessed. His blocking and catching also seemed to greatly improve as well, not to mention his fumbling.

Hopefully next year he works on the blocking a bit, as well as keeping up on that fumbling issue, and he'll truly be an unstoppable force.

ejmat
06-28-2011, 03:54 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

Yep. Despite what Marrdro will tell you, a good Fullback helped Peterson a whole lot. He said himself he credits Richardson more than any other player for helping him out as a rookie
Don't misquote AD my friend. He gave T-rich credit, but it wasn't for what he did on the field.

For me, AD's best work wasn't 2007. Teams really didn't have alot on him. What he did in 2008 was remarkable. Teams had tape to watch, were set to stop him and he still got it done, to the tune of over 1700 yards.

Last year was right up there as well. Mostly cause I think he started to really get the handle on the hole game, especially ball control.

I have a sneaky feeling that we will finally see his best effort. Blocking/Running/Catching, all rolled into one back.

Apart from that first sentence, I'd agree. I thought last year was AD's best season yet, despite the fact his total numbers weren't quite up there.

The way he ran, and the amount of work he had to do by himself was truly incredible. He was running like a man posessed. His blocking and catching also seemed to greatly improve as well, not to mention his fumbling.

Hopefully next year he works on the blocking a bit, as well as keeping up on that fumbling issue, and he'll truly be an unstoppable force.
+2

jmcdon00
06-28-2011, 03:57 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.
It's interesting the correlation between QB success and RB success. I have noticed that often a RB will have his best years when the QB is playing poorly. Look at the top 5 rushers in 09, none had a good QB.
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=0&season=2009&Submit=Go&experience=null&archive=true&statisticCategory=RUSHING&conference=null&qualified=true
I think alot of it has to do with playcalling, and offensive strategy.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 03:58 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.
It's interesting the correlation between QB success and RB success. I have noticed that often a RB will have his best years when the QB is playing poorly. Look at the top 5 rushers in 09, none had a good QB.
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=0&season=2009&Submit=Go&experience=null&archive=true&statisticCategory=RUSHING&conference=null&qualified=true
I think alot of it has to do with playcalling, and offensive strategy.

Probably also has alot to do with what the focus of the team is. Usually if you have a poor QB, you better be able to run the ball. If you can't run the ball, you should be able to pass.
If you can't do either, you're the Lions.

12purplepride28
06-28-2011, 07:34 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.
It's interesting the correlation between QB success and RB success. I have noticed that often a RB will have his best years when the QB is playing poorly. Look at the top 5 rushers in 09, none had a good QB.
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=0&season=2009&Submit=Go&experience=null&archive=true&statisticCategory=RUSHING&conference=null&qualified=true
I think alot of it has to do with playcalling, and offensive strategy.

I think that's just because of where the focus of that offense lies. But it can't be denied that if you have a good QB, it will become easier for the RB to make plays because of the dual threat. I'm sure AP would love to play with Tom Brady, and while neither of them may have their top statistical year because they won't just focus on AP or Brady, the team would kick ass.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 07:54 PM
I think that's just because of where the focus of that offense lies. But it can't be denied that if you have a good QB, it will become easier for the RB to make plays because of the dual threat. I'm sure AP would love to play with Tom Brady, and while neither of them may have their top statistical year because they won't just focus on AP or Brady, the team would kick ass.
I tend to lump players into different phases/levels of "Jockdum".

Long story short, I have AD up there at the top level. He, is one of those cats that is going to be spectacular no matter who is on the field with him and he knows it, almost to the point that he really doesn't care who is out there.

In the end, I guess I'm trying to say, I don' think AD really worries much about who is going to hand him the ball. The only ones who do are the fans and the press who spin it for the fans.

Again, I think AD is going to have his finest year this year and thats with young Ponder starting.

jmcdon00
06-28-2011, 08:30 PM
I think that's just because of where the focus of that offense lies. But it can't be denied that if you have a good QB, it will become easier for the RB to make plays because of the dual threat. I'm sure AP would love to play with Tom Brady, and while neither of them may have their top statistical year because they won't just focus on AP or Brady, the team would kick ass.
I tend to lump players into different phases/levels of "Jockdum".

Long story short, I have AD up there at the top level. He, is one of those cats that is going to be spectacular no matter who is on the field with him and he knows it, almost to the point that he really doesn't care who is out there.

In the end, I guess I'm trying to say, I don' think AD really worries much about who is going to hand him the ball. The only ones who do are the fans and the press who spin it for the fans.

Again, I think AD is going to have his finest year this year and thats with young Ponder starting.
I agree in part. AD is not worried about his production, he knows he can beat 9 or 10 in the box, he's been doing it his whole career.
Ultimately though he knows in order to be considered one of the all-time greats he needs to win a championship. He knows that to win a championship he needs a QB and quality teammates.

singersp
06-29-2011, 01:24 AM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

Yep. Despite what Marrdro will tell you, a good Fullback helped Peterson a whole lot. He said himself he credits Richardson more than any other player for helping him out as a rookie


Don't misquote AD my friend. He gave T-rich credit, but it wasn't for what he did on the field.

Are you fucking kidding me!?

AD gave T-Rich a shit load of credit for what he did on the field for him!

Is you mind on a lockout?

Where's that 2x4 when you need it!?

SpaceMTN69
06-29-2011, 05:43 AM
I think what some Vikings fans need to realize is that guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Manning dont fall off of trees. These guys are worked with for hours with coaches and prepped for game time. There are a very select few who can truly be entered into any team and make them a winner.

Go look back to 2008 for a second and the Atlanta Falcons. Matt Ryan was a rookie QB who benefitted nicely from having a bruising running game, good defense, and talented group of big uglys. He wasnt Peyton Manning, nor will he ever be. Manning entered in with the Colts and capped off a terrible season. He didnt ahve the luxury a guy like Ryan had yet I dont think there is a debate that coming out of college, Manning was much more talented. Team fellas. Thats the name of the game.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 01:58 PM
Of course good WRs make it easy on a QB. Fucking stupid discussion. A good o-line make it easy on a RB/QB, a good QB makes it easy on RBs by taking off pressure, a good team makes it easy on a coach. It's a team effort, so why do you think Ponder wouldn't be involved. Yes they'll probably have to carry him by making highlight reel catches on every single play because he's too stupid and inaccurate to throw it straight? You just want this to be an argument to support all the BS you spew against Favre.

There's a 2x4 impression on Marr's forehead now....

Caine

AD's best avg. YPC year was 2007.

funny, our best run blocking unit was in 2007.

Mac playing well, Hutch, Mostly healthy Birk, Hererra/Marcus Johnson? and Cook/Marcus Johnson. They blocked fairly well for us, well the left side. With Sauce at TE and Richardson in the backfield, and Ferguson and Taylor doing some decent downfield blocking, it led to alot of big gains.

Richardson was the piece that made it all work. It hasn't quite been the same since.

Yep. Despite what Marrdro will tell you, a good Fullback helped Peterson a whole lot. He said himself he credits Richardson more than any other player for helping him out as a rookie


Don't misquote AD my friend. He gave T-rich credit, but it wasn't for what he did on the field.

Are you fucking kidding me!?

AD gave T-Rich a shit load of credit for what he did on the field for him!

Is you mind on a lockout?

Where's that 2x4 when you need it!?
I think you need the 2x4 my friend.

In the same article he also said he doesn't like to have a FB infront of him.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 02:08 PM
I think what some Vikings fans need to realize is that guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Manning dont fall off of trees. These guys are worked with for hours with coaches and prepped for game time. There are a very select few who can truly be entered into any team and make them a winner.

Go look back to 2008 for a second and the Atlanta Falcons. Matt Ryan was a rookie QB who benefitted nicely from having a bruising running game, good defense, and talented group of big uglys. He wasnt Peyton Manning, nor will he ever be. Manning entered in with the Colts and capped off a terrible season. He didnt ahve the luxury a guy like Ryan had yet I dont think there is a debate that coming out of college, Manning was much more talented. Team fellas. Thats the name of the game.
I think to understand the dynamic around most Vikings fans you have to take into account the organizations efforts (or lack there of) with respect to drafting, grooming and winning with a young QB.

Most of them have only seen old vets as the solution to our QB position with Pepp as probably the only one they have seen since the Childress era.

1977 1rst Round Tommy Kramer
1981 8th Round Wade Wilson
1992 9th Round Brad Johnson

Its actually kindof funny that most say the Chiller era didn't try to address the QB position when reality is they drafted more QBs and traded for more QB's and brought in more FA QB's than any other era/regime in Vikings history.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 02:16 PM
Its actually kindof funny that most say the Chiller era didn't try to address the QB position when reality is they drafted more QBs and traded for more QB's and brought in more FA QB's than any other era/regime in Vikings history.

Yeah, Brooks Bollinger, John David Booty, Rhett Bohmar, and Kelly Holcomb really count as trying to address the QB position. Give me a break.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 02:25 PM
Its actually kindof funny that most say the Chiller era didn't try to address the QB position when reality is they drafted more QBs and traded for more QB's and brought in more FA QB's than any other era/regime in Vikings history.

Yeah, Brooks Bollinger, John David Booty, Rhett Bohmar, and Kelly Holcomb really count as trying to address the QB position. Give me a break.
Standing question when I get an cliche answer like that.......

Who would have you brought in or who would have you drafted?

So far the only answer that makes any sense is Warner (most thought he was done) Brees (Not sure we even had a chance) Schaub (most thought the asking price was to high) Garcia (Career 9-7 QB).

We had no real chance of drafting a "Franchise guy" because of our draft position other than "Cutler" who we would have had to trade up for and elected not to do it. No other talk since 2006 about moving up in the draft for any QB.

Again, love your answer, but it doesn't really match reality, mostly cause there wasn't anything worth getting until the Noodle came along and we missed that one by one year because we got caught messing around in the cookie jar.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 02:46 PM
Its actually kindof funny that most say the Chiller era didn't try to address the QB position when reality is they drafted more QBs and traded for more QB's and brought in more FA QB's than any other era/regime in Vikings history.

Yeah, Brooks Bollinger, John David Booty, Rhett Bohmar, and Kelly Holcomb really count as trying to address the QB position. Give me a break.
Standing question when I get an cliche answer like that.......

Who would have you brought in or who would have you drafted?

So far the only answer that makes any sense is Warner (most thought he was done) Brees (Not sure we even had a chance) Schaub (most thought the asking price was to high) Garcia (Career 9-7 QB).

so as usual, you ask a question, and automatically dismiss the top few answers, claiming they were unattainable.

Yes, I thought Warner was done, and I don't think our team was a good fit for him
Brees would have been the obvious choice
Schaub would have been a good pickup too, and many here were calling for us to go for him
Garcia is a career 9-7 QB? I must have missed something, how much better has TJ played? Webb? Thought so. I'd take Garcia TODAY over TJ.

But other players available
Matt Cassell
Mike Vick
Kerry Collins
Derek Anderson
Byron Leftwich
Billy Volek
Tommy Maddox
Vinny Testaverde
(last two I was just kidding)

Point is there were players there, all of whom, and others I didn't include, are better backup options than Kelly HOlcomb or Brooks Bollinger. Easily better than JDB or Bomar, considering they've all thrown NFL passes.

So your little claim that nobody was available is complete rubbish (wow, I've been watching far too much British television)

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 03:33 PM
Its actually kindof funny that most say the Chiller era didn't try to address the QB position when reality is they drafted more QBs and traded for more QB's and brought in more FA QB's than any other era/regime in Vikings history.

Yeah, Brooks Bollinger, John David Booty, Rhett Bohmar, and Kelly Holcomb really count as trying to address the QB position. Give me a break.
Standing question when I get an cliche answer like that.......

Who would have you brought in or who would have you drafted?

So far the only answer that makes any sense is Warner (most thought he was done) Brees (Not sure we even had a chance) Schaub (most thought the asking price was to high) Garcia (Career 9-7 QB).

so as usual, you ask a question, and automatically dismiss the top few answers, claiming they were unattainable.

Yes, I thought Warner was done, and I don't think our team was a good fit for him
Brees would have been the obvious choice
Schaub would have been a good pickup too, and many here were calling for us to go for him
Garcia is a career 9-7 QB? I must have missed something, how much better has TJ played? Webb? Thought so. I'd take Garcia TODAY over TJ.

But other players available
Matt Cassell
Mike Vick
Kerry Collins
Derek Anderson
Byron Leftwich
Billy Volek
Tommy Maddox
Vinny Testaverde
(last two I was just kidding)

Point is there were players there, all of whom, and others I didn't include, are better backup options than Kelly HOlcomb or Brooks Bollinger. Easily better than JDB or Bomar, considering they've all thrown NFL passes.

So your little claim that nobody was available is complete rubbish (wow, I've been watching far too much British television)
So you would have rather had Cassell than the Noodle? So would have I. LOL.

Same with Vick.

As to the rest, comeon. Now your trying to talk about backups. I'm talking about trying to find a starter. Again, when you start looking at who was available thats all that was there. Career backups.

Hard to fix the position when thats all you have to select from.

(Caveat - Can't wait to hear your answer about Vick and Cassell :laugh: ).

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 04:16 PM
Its actually kindof funny that most say the Chiller era didn't try to address the QB position when reality is they drafted more QBs and traded for more QB's and brought in more FA QB's than any other era/regime in Vikings history.

Yeah, Brooks Bollinger, John David Booty, Rhett Bohmar, and Kelly Holcomb really count as trying to address the QB position. Give me a break.
Standing question when I get an cliche answer like that.......

Who would have you brought in or who would have you drafted?

So far the only answer that makes any sense is Warner (most thought he was done) Brees (Not sure we even had a chance) Schaub (most thought the asking price was to high) Garcia (Career 9-7 QB).

so as usual, you ask a question, and automatically dismiss the top few answers, claiming they were unattainable.

Yes, I thought Warner was done, and I don't think our team was a good fit for him
Brees would have been the obvious choice
Schaub would have been a good pickup too, and many here were calling for us to go for him
Garcia is a career 9-7 QB? I must have missed something, how much better has TJ played? Webb? Thought so. I'd take Garcia TODAY over TJ.

But other players available
Matt Cassell
Mike Vick
Kerry Collins
Derek Anderson
Byron Leftwich
Billy Volek
Tommy Maddox
Vinny Testaverde
(last two I was just kidding)

Point is there were players there, all of whom, and others I didn't include, are better backup options than Kelly HOlcomb or Brooks Bollinger. Easily better than JDB or Bomar, considering they've all thrown NFL passes.

So your little claim that nobody was available is complete rubbish (wow, I've been watching far too much British television)
So you would have rather had Cassell than the Noodle? So would have I. LOL.
Had I known Favre would have the 09 season he had, I'd say no, but going in without knowing, it'd be close. I was a believer (and still am to a degree) that Cassel is nothing more than a career backup who had a fantastic system to work in, and a decent season(think Garrard in 07) in KC. He'll go downhill from here. However, he offers the potential to last for quite a few seasons, vs the 2 we'd get from Favre, and he showed that if you give him the tools, he is quite capable. That alone is far more than TJ can say.



Same with Vick.
Wouldn't have taken Vick no matter what. He is the definition of un-clutch QB. made ONE NFCCG in his career, and is an all-or-nothing type of QB.



As to the rest, comeon. Now your trying to talk about backups. I'm talking about trying to find a starter. Again, when you start looking at who was available thats all that was there. Career backups.
Yeah, and who we brought in was all that better? They were brought in to push TJ, and some of them started. I'm betting most of those players would not only push TJ, but take his spot easily.

jargomcfargo
06-29-2011, 04:39 PM
I used to think Cassel was a program guy. But I saw him play in KC last year a bit, and he looks pretty damn good.
I wouldn't have gone for him when he was available either, but I think the guy is going to be a pretty good QB.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 04:45 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 05:03 PM
Yeah, and who we brought in was all that better?
Of course they weren't. Thats my point. The QB pool was pretty bleak.


They were brought in to push TJ, and some of them started. I'm betting most of those players would not only push TJ, but take his spot easily.
I'm not sure I buy into the whole "Push" idea. I think that is one of those cliche kindof things that the press and even teams use to make fans happy.

Truth of the matter is, a guy like TJ, from all accounts, worked his ass off. No one on the roster behind or ahead of him caused that to happen.

If a guy needs to be "Pushed" to perform, I think his ass needs to be sent packing cause now I'm carrying two guys to get production out of one.

In the end, TJ's issues had nothing to do with motivation or work ethic IMHO.

jargomcfargo
06-29-2011, 05:08 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?

I understand why they didn't bring Cassel in. And I know my view on Cassel is retrospective.

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.

Let's hope they have displayed better judgement with regard to Christian Ponder.

jmcdon00
06-29-2011, 05:18 PM
They didn't get Cassel because they wanted Favre. Considering how 09 went it's hard to fault them. I don't think there is any way they could have had both, as both wanted to be starters.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 05:28 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?
...

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.


Exactly.

The Chiefs liked waht they saw, it didn't help that their coordinator went there, but they thought Cassell could work for them, and he has so far.

Childress's crew couldn't spot QB talent if their lives depended on it.

tastywaves
06-29-2011, 05:46 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?

I understand why they didn't bring Cassel in. And I know my view on Cassel is retrospective.

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.

Let's hope they have displayed better judgement with regard to Christian Ponder.

Being able to spot QB talent and being able to develop/utilize QB talent are both key IMO. There are always the rare few with an extreme competitive nature that will excel no matter the circumstance, but in most cases it appears to be the organization that makes them successful.

There's not many teams in the league that appear to have the ability to develop a QB, putting a lot of potential good QB's into very average to weak status. Whereas, some organizations 2nd and 3rd string backups appear better prepared to lead a team than many veteran starters. I don't think this is due strictly to talent.

This is my bigger concern with MN, I'm not sure we have the talent to make a young QB successful unless he is one of the few rare exceptions.

Disclaimer: The above comment is not intended to defend TJ's lack of success. I don't think TJ has the personality to drive a successful NFL team, no matter the circumstance.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 05:57 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?
...

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.


Exactly.

The Chiefs liked waht they saw, it didn't help that their coordinator went there, but they thought Cassell could work for them, and he has so far.

Childress's crew couldn't spot QB talent if their lives depended on it.
See, this is what I like about PPO.

Only ones of the crew that is gone is the HC, Coord and QB coach. The scouts and GM like guy (Ricky) are still in place.

Only thing thats changed is you have a new HC (A defensive guy), a O-coord (who hasn't proved anything other than he sucks at being a O-coord) and a new QB coach picking from the talent the same Scouts and GM like guy shows them.

jargomcfargo
06-29-2011, 06:00 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?

I understand why they didn't bring Cassel in. And I know my view on Cassel is retrospective.

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.

Let's hope they have displayed better judgement with regard to Christian Ponder.

Being able to spot QB talent and being able to develop/utilize QB talent are both key IMO. There are always the rare few with an extreme competitive nature that will excel no matter the circumstance, but in most cases it appears to be the organization that makes them successful.

There's not many teams in the league that appear to have the ability to develop a QB, putting a lot of potential good QB's into very average to weak status. Whereas, some organizations 2nd and 3rd string backups appear better prepared to lead a team than many veteran starters. I don't think this is due strictly to talent.

This is my bigger concern with MN, I'm not sure we have the talent to make a young QB successful unless he is one of the few rare exceptions.

Disclaimer: The above comment is not intended to defend TJ's lack of success. I don't think TJ has the personality to drive a successful NFL team, no matter the circumstance.

Agreed. That's why the Vikings need to keep Rice and improve their offensive line. A hall of fame QB couldn't perform without those tools.
How could we ever expect a rookie to do well?

tastywaves
06-29-2011, 06:01 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?
...

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.


Exactly.

The Chiefs liked waht they saw, it didn't help that their coordinator went there, but they thought Cassell could work for them, and he has so far.

Childress's crew couldn't spot QB talent if their lives depended on it.
See, this is what I like about PPO.

Only ones of the crew that is gone is the HC, Coord and QB coach. The scouts and GM like guy (Ricky) are still in place.

Only thing thats changed is you have a new HC (A defensive guy), a O-coord (who hasn't proved anything other than he sucks at being a O-coord) and a new QB coach picking from the talent the same Scouts and GM like guy shows them.

I still blame Childress for the housing market crash. Everything was doing great before he came along.

tastywaves
06-29-2011, 06:07 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

Are you nuts? Are you refering to the same talent evaluators that brought in all those stellar QB's during the Childress era?

I understand why they didn't bring Cassel in. And I know my view on Cassel is retrospective.

But the two ton elephant in the room is the Vikings inability to spot quarterback talent; not that nobody was available.

Let's hope they have displayed better judgement with regard to Christian Ponder.

Being able to spot QB talent and being able to develop/utilize QB talent are both key IMO. There are always the rare few with an extreme competitive nature that will excel no matter the circumstance, but in most cases it appears to be the organization that makes them successful.

There's not many teams in the league that appear to have the ability to develop a QB, putting a lot of potential good QB's into very average to weak status. Whereas, some organizations 2nd and 3rd string backups appear better prepared to lead a team than many veteran starters. I don't think this is due strictly to talent.

This is my bigger concern with MN, I'm not sure we have the talent to make a young QB successful unless he is one of the few rare exceptions.

Disclaimer: The above comment is not intended to defend TJ's lack of success. I don't think TJ has the personality to drive a successful NFL team, no matter the circumstance.

Agreed. That's why the Vikings need to keep Rice and improve their offensive line. A hall of fame QB couldn't perform without those tools.
How could we ever expect a rookie to do well?

I was referring more to the coaching talent. Obviously, player talent can greatly help as well in the development. The QB needs to become a position of strength in order to have any real success.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 06:13 PM
Agreed. That's why the Vikings need to keep Rice and improve their offensive line. A hall of fame QB couldn't perform without those tools.
How could we ever expect a rookie to do well?
YOU, MY FRIEND, are wise beyond your years.....B)

On a side note, one way is to actually have your QB show up for practice and work through all the stuff most QB's have to work through instead of having him just show up for games. :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: (.....snicker.....you got me going)

ejmat
06-29-2011, 06:32 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 06:45 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.

As to Carr.......:sick: I think my feelings on him were validated last year when the 49rs needed a QB so bad (coaches job was on the line) and with him on the roster they went out and got a guy off the streets who was not only out of the game but didn't go through camp like Carr did.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 07:05 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

BloodyHorns82
06-29-2011, 07:40 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

It was the 34th overall pick. Sounds like NE could have had a 1st round pic but opted to take the high 2nd instead.

From Wiki:

both the Detroit Lions and Tampa Bay Buccaneers proposed three-way trades to the Denver Broncos, in which they would have received Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler, the Broncos would have received Cassel, and New England would have received a first-round draft pick.[34]

seaniemck7
06-29-2011, 07:47 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

It wasn't just the trade. Cassel was franchised and held a $14M(or there abouts)guaranteed salary. No one but the Chiefs thought he was worth that kind of jank.

ejmat
06-29-2011, 08:01 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

It wasn't just the trade. Cassel was franchised and held a $14M(or there abouts)guaranteed salary. No one but the Chiefs thought he was worth that kind of jank.
....and it was also worked out between the two teams since part of the Chief's staff came from NE.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 09:11 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

It wasn't just the trade. Cassel was franchised and held a $14M(or there abouts)guaranteed salary. No one but the Chiefs thought he was worth that kind of jank.

No, it was a trade.

If the Chiefs were to take him via franchise tag, they would have to give up at least a first and a third, (or is it two firsts?) and the dollar amount.

They traded for Cassel, and re-worked the contract.

seaniemck7
06-29-2011, 10:00 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

It wasn't just the trade. Cassel was franchised and held a $14M(or there abouts)guaranteed salary. No one but the Chiefs thought he was worth that kind of jank.

No, it was a trade.

If the Chiefs were to take him via franchise tag, they would have to give up at least a first and a third, (or is it two firsts?) and the dollar amount.

They traded for Cassel, and re-worked the contract.

Correct. I know it was a trade. However, the franchise tag help set the table for his compensation which wound up being a 6 year, $63M dollar deal:

7/14/2009: Signed a six-year, $63 million contract. The deal contains $28 million guaranteed, including a $10 million roster bonus in the first year. 2011: $4.75 million (+ $7.5 million option bonus), 2012: $5.25 million, 2013: $7.5 million, 2014: $9 million, 2015: Free Agent.

I wouldn't exactly take that contract "in a heart beat". Cassel was coming off a year in a system that was the most prolific offense in NFL history one year prior. He had not started a game since high school prior to that.

My point was that the 2nd rounder a Vrabel is fine. And while he might prove that he deserves that contract eventually, not many people believed he was worth that kind of $ at the time.

jmcdon00
06-29-2011, 10:32 PM
Regardless, we're not the ones doing the scouting, the team is. They should be able to figure out how Cassell looked in NE, and if his skills might be able to be translated into a good NFL QB on an average team.

I maybe wrong here but was Cassell ever "available"? I don't remeber for sure but I thought he was udner contract wiht the patriots and they traded him and Vrabek for a 2nd round pick????

I am of the few that believer there weren't a lot of choices in QB. The two I would have sought after were Schaub and Carr.

- Carr was available
- Schaub the asking price was too much for an unproven guy.
-Brees would have been too difficult as that is the same time Pep was still with the Vikings and demanding a trade. In fact after Brees snubbed Miami, the trade to Miami was made.
-Warner - I thought was done.

Other QBs were all backup calibur QBs no better than what we did bring in. One other QB that Childress drafted was Thigpen. Yes, the Chiller did address the QB position. Maybe not to anyone's liking but it certainly was addressed. Whether or not talent was available for a decent price is another story.
Good post my friend.

Cassell kindof falls into two catagories....(Brees/Schaub). Brees in that I'm not sure we really had a chance at him (like you said) and Schaub in that most of us wouldn't have given what was given.
What?

Pats traded Vrabel and Cassel to the Chiefs for only a second rounder. I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

It wasn't just the trade. Cassel was franchised and held a $14M(or there abouts)guaranteed salary. No one but the Chiefs thought he was worth that kind of jank.

No, it was a trade.

If the Chiefs were to take him via franchise tag, they would have to give up at least a first and a third, (or is it two firsts?) and the dollar amount.

They traded for Cassel, and re-worked the contract.

Correct. I know it was a trade. However, the franchise tag help set the table for his compensation which wound up being a 6 year, $63M dollar deal:

7/14/2009: Signed a six-year, $63 million contract. The deal contains $28 million guaranteed, including a $10 million roster bonus in the first year. 2011: $4.75 million (+ $7.5 million option bonus), 2012: $5.25 million, 2013: $7.5 million, 2014: $9 million, 2015: Free Agent.

I wouldn't exactly take that contract "in a heart beat". Cassel was coming off a year in a system that was the most prolific offense in NFL history one year prior. He had not started a game since high school prior to that.

My point was that the 2nd rounder a Vrabel is fine. And while he might prove that he deserves that contract eventually, not many people believed he was worth that kind of $ at the time.
Besides the draft pick and money the team would have had to give up Brett Favre. No way you sign Cassel to that deal and don't start him. 09 would have been a much different year with Cassel at the helm.

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 01:21 PM
Besides the draft pick and money the team would have had to give up Brett Favre. No way you sign Cassel to that deal and don't start him. 09 would have been a much different year with Cassel at the helm.
That right there is an excellent point that gets us back to the whole discussion point of "Realistic" options. Even the few names that some of the posters on here throw out, very few of those can be even considered "Realistic" options.

Hell, I could throw Peytons name out there and said we could have traded for him. Its a possibility, but not very "Realistic".

i_bleed_purple
07-05-2011, 01:43 PM
Besides the draft pick and money the team would have had to give up Brett Favre. No way you sign Cassel to that deal and don't start him. 09 would have been a much different year with Cassel at the helm.
That right there is an excellent point that gets us back to the whole discussion point of "Realistic" options. Even the few names that some of the posters on here throw out, very few of those can be even considered "Realistic" options.

Hell, I could throw Peytons name out there and said we could have traded for him. Its a possibility, but not very "Realistic".

You're right. It's unrealistic to think that our staff would target a talented QB.

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
You're right. It's unrealistic to think that our staff would target a talented QB.
.....sigh......