HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The All-Encompassing Minnesota Pro Sports Thread VI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-02-2012, 02:53 PM
  #276
tomgilbertfan
u wot m8
 
tomgilbertfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 8,755
vCash: 500
Oh wait GB changed their mind.

tomgilbertfan is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:03 PM
  #277
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Bring back the replacement refs!

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:14 PM
  #278
Jaykay
Kuemperpedic
 
Jaykay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,122
vCash: 500
It's become comical how bad this offense is other than Peterson

Jaykay is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:21 PM
  #279
D U M B A
The Disaster March
 
D U M B A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Oh Ponder... Hahaha!

Just pitiful.

D U M B A is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:25 PM
  #280
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,165
vCash: 500
I hate Webb and even I think we would be better off with him now.

Would prefer Bethel-Thompson though.

melinko is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:41 PM
  #281
tomgilbertfan
u wot m8
 
tomgilbertfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 8,755
vCash: 500
Ponder's horrible.
Our WRs are horrible.
Our D is horrible.

tomgilbertfan is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:45 PM
  #282
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Can't get upset about any play by the Vikings. This is the team we expected in Week 1. They ridiculously overachieved for a long time, but that didn't mean they were better than this.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 03:51 PM
  #283
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Why? Why do you kick a field goal there? It's 4th and 3 deep in Packers territory, with time before the 2 minute warning. If you go for it and make it, the clock stops no matter what, and you can get the TD you need and only need a quick stop (or onside) and a field goal. If you kick and score, you need to march the entire length of the field and score a touchdown. If you can't gain 3 yards, how are you going to gain 50+ on a shorter clock?

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 04:01 PM
  #284
tomgilbertfan
u wot m8
 
tomgilbertfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 8,755
vCash: 500
Oh god the bears might pull this one out.

tomgilbertfan is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 04:07 PM
  #285
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
You need two scores. You're in position to get one of them and still have a half decent amount of time left. There's nothing wrong with going for the field goal there, it's probably the correct decision. There is something wrong with having someone who seems like he's actively trying to submarine the team's chances touch the ball on every offensive snap besides punts and field goals.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 04:22 PM
  #286
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Averman View Post
You need two scores. You're in position to get one of them and still have a half decent amount of time left. There's nothing wrong with going for the field goal there, it's probably the correct decision. There is something wrong with having someone who seems like he's actively trying to submarine the team's chances touch the ball on every offensive snap besides punts and field goals.
No, that's the common idiocy, not a valid claim. It has been shown statistically time and time again that kicking that field goal is a mistake. The team has been completely unable to move the ball down the field the entire game. You've already done most of the work getting down there now. Getting a quick TD and getting the ball back only requires you to make it a short distance down the field to try kick a field goal with one of the longest legs in the league.

There was 2:01 left. After a made field goal and kickoff, if it's not a successful onside kick (and expected onside kicks rarely are) the Packers have the ball back with around 1:50 left. The Vikings had 2 timeouts which means the Packers can run the ball 3 times which will burn at least 50 seconds. Add in a decent punt and the Vikings get the ball back deep in their own zone with about 50 seconds remaining, needing to go the entire length of the field with the third worst passing offense in the game. There's almost zero chance of winning there.

Swap that around with the scenario of trying for the TD. Assume a first down is successful and two more plays are required to score, so it takes things down to around 1:50 left. Kick deep instead of onside and hold them to a three and out. Again you have 50 seconds + punt come off the clock, but now you have the ball with 40 seconds at about midfield needing to gain just 10-20 yards to kick a field goal. Essentially what needs to be weighed is whether or not your team can gain 3 yards. If they can't gain 3 yards, how do you expect them to go 80 yards down the field in 50 seconds with no timeouts?

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 04:34 PM
  #287
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 500
What's Tarvaris Jackson up to these days?

__________________

After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
this providence is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 04:45 PM
  #288
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
I know Ponder had an awful game, but it's worth keeping in mind one comment that Aikman made near the end of the game:

"I don't care if you're Joe Montana, you're not going to be able to complete passes to these wide receivers."

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 04:59 PM
  #289
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 500
I look at it as...

"You're not going to catch many passes with this guy attempting to throw the ball."

this providence is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 05:02 PM
  #290
Mansfield
possession obsession
 
Mansfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,033
vCash: 500
ugh.

Mansfield is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 05:52 PM
  #291
tomgilbertfan
u wot m8
 
tomgilbertfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 8,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I know Ponder had an awful game, but it's worth keeping in mind one comment that Aikman made near the end of the game:

"I don't care if you're Joe Montana, you're not going to be able to complete passes to these wide receivers."
Yeah our WRs are pretty bad, but both of Ponder's INTs were completely on him. He's still not making good reads, nearly overthrew Rudolph when he was wide open, is trying to throw across his body all the time and hasn't shown any improvement on the mistakes he's been making since last season. He's also not staying in the pocket, at all, but that one could be more on the receivers not getting open if you want to argue it that way. But he is clearly not comfortable in the pocket. And i've never seen a QB underthrow go-routes as much as Ponder does.

tomgilbertfan is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 07:26 PM
  #292
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC2600 View Post
Yeah our WRs are pretty bad, but both of Ponder's INTs were completely on him. He's still not making good reads, nearly overthrew Rudolph when he was wide open, is trying to throw across his body all the time and hasn't shown any improvement on the mistakes he's been making since last season. He's also not staying in the pocket, at all, but that one could be more on the receivers not getting open if you want to argue it that way. But he is clearly not comfortable in the pocket. And i've never seen a QB underthrow go-routes as much as Ponder does.
Absolutely. Ponder did a poor job and much of the loss is on his shoulders. If he had thrown the ball properly (or just away) on that first interception, the Vikings very likely would have won the game. But it's important to note that he was being relied upon to create something out there, and that's not something he can do. If the Vikings had the Packers' receiving corps, they would be an above average team offensively even with Ponder at QB. They wouldn't be a dominate or elite team by any means, but we'd get by.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 07:39 PM
  #293
OpRedDawn*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Why? Why do you kick a field goal there? It's 4th and 3 deep in Packers territory, with time before the 2 minute warning. If you go for it and make it, the clock stops no matter what, and you can get the TD you need and only need a quick stop (or onside) and a field goal. If you kick and score, you need to march the entire length of the field and score a touchdown. If you can't gain 3 yards, how are you going to gain 50+ on a shorter clock?
I've always said this too. It infuriates me.

OpRedDawn* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:06 PM
  #294
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
even the announcers commented on how ponders receivers were crap, look sure he isn't making the best throws, but when your WR don't give you anywhere to throw its not like he can just pull a WR out of his ass.

Vikes need to address this issue before they throw him aside, he has plenty of good arm just needs a guy to you know get open

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:06 PM
  #295
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Absolutely. Ponder did a poor job and much of the loss is on his shoulders. If he had thrown the ball properly (or just away) on that first interception, the Vikings very likely would have won the game. But it's important to note that he was being relied upon to create something out there, and that's not something he can do. If the Vikings had the Packers' receiving corps, they would be an above average team offensively even with Ponder at QB. They wouldn't be a dominate or elite team by any means, but we'd get by.
He's not just making bad throws, he's making bad decisions and that's completely on him. He is being relied on to be competent, and not screw up what our AP is giving us each week. So far, he has failed.

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:15 PM
  #296
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
To elaborate on an earlier comment I made about Ponder:

If you swapped Ponder for Rodgers, this would be a borderline playoff team. A truly elite, in his prime QB paired with AP in the backfield could overcome the WR on the field. But, on the other hand, if you replaced our receiver corps with a team like Green Bay's, Ponder would be adequate to get this team to the playoffs as well. If you swapped Ponder for a middling QB (like a Flacco, Palmer, or Dalton) you'd end up with more or less the same results as we have.

The Vikings passing offense has zero playmakers when Harvin is out. Ponder's not good enough to overcome his receivers, and his receivers aren't good enough to offer him support.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:21 PM
  #297
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
He's not just making bad throws, he's making bad decisions and that's completely on him. He is being relied on to be competent, and not screw up what our AP is giving us each week. So far, he has failed.
Honestly, I don't know what all of these "bad decision" claims are out of this current game. His first interception was an easy TD if he doesn't underthrow his receiver. The second INT was a similar story, if the ball comes out on time, that's a good pass. He severely underthrew receivers several other times in the game, and Rudolph bailed out a couple flat out errant throws as well. But I can't really say there were any situations where I questioned where or when he threw the ball. He did a rather good job of tucking the ball away and running with it on quite a few occasions, which frequently resulted in 3rd and short instead of the 3rd and 10+ that had been killing the team lately.

He was simply awful when it comes to accuracy, but I don't think that today's game was one where you could really question many (if any) of the decisions he made. It's not like he had any real boneheaded plays like Rodgers' throw into double coverage on that failed double lateral trick play.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:29 PM
  #298
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
His first interception was an easy TD if he doesn't underthrow his receiver.
Or if there wasn't a Green Bay DB right in front of said receiver, which there was. The correct decision was throwing that ball OB. It cost us at least 3 points and potentially 7.

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:46 PM
  #299
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
No, that's the common idiocy, not a valid claim. It has been shown statistically time and time again that kicking that field goal is a mistake. The team has been completely unable to move the ball down the field the entire game. You've already done most of the work getting down there now. Getting a quick TD and getting the ball back only requires you to make it a short distance down the field to try kick a field goal with one of the longest legs in the league.

There was 2:01 left. After a made field goal and kickoff, if it's not a successful onside kick (and expected onside kicks rarely are) the Packers have the ball back with around 1:50 left. The Vikings had 2 timeouts which means the Packers can run the ball 3 times which will burn at least 50 seconds. Add in a decent punt and the Vikings get the ball back deep in their own zone with about 50 seconds remaining, needing to go the entire length of the field with the third worst passing offense in the game. There's almost zero chance of winning there.

Swap that around with the scenario of trying for the TD. Assume a first down is successful and two more plays are required to score, so it takes things down to around 1:50 left. Kick deep instead of onside and hold them to a three and out. Again you have 50 seconds + punt come off the clock, but now you have the ball with 40 seconds at about midfield needing to gain just 10-20 yards to kick a field goal. Essentially what needs to be weighed is whether or not your team can gain 3 yards. If they can't gain 3 yards, how do you expect them to go 80 yards down the field in 50 seconds with no timeouts?
and if you don't make the 1st down you turn the ball over and don't get it back. kicking the field goal was the absolute right decision, you are going for a score and you get the ball control, sure the onside might fail but its not like the Vikes were getting the packer offense off the field the whole day.

because Walsh missed the kick didn't make it a wrong decision just a cap to a bad day.

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:47 PM
  #300
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
Or if there wasn't a Green Bay DB right in front of said receiver, which there was. The correct decision was throwing that ball OB. It cost us at least 3 points and potentially 7.
I have to question whether you watched the play then. Jenkins was wide open. While throwing the ball out of bounds would have been an acceptable decision, he had a wide open receiver in the end zone. Throw the ball actually to the receiver, or as we're constantly reminded by announcers "where only your guy can catch it" and you're fine. If you overthrow him, you're fine. But Ponder's throw was so underthrown that a 6'1" safety caught the ball despite being a good 5-10 feet in front of the 6'4" receiver who didn't move.

squidz* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.