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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
