Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 75
  1. #51
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139
    I was impressed seeing an offense that could actually ALMOST take advantage of having Adrian Peterson...Cassell needs to be the starter. End of discussion.

    The Defense, however, disappointed me once again. They continue to allow everyone to score on them seemingly at will....especially in the 4th Quarter. They almost gave this one away. I think the idea of approaching Winfield and trying to bring him in is almost REQUIRED at this point, as this squad has been living or dying on luck....and we're only lucky 1/4 of the time.

    Caine

  2. #52
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2
    I give our D a TINY bit of credit. Near the end of the game, down 10 points, we managed to force the Steelers to kick the field goal rather than score the TD. If they score a TD that drive, I have no doubt in my mind we lose. We made them kick, forcing the final drive to be a TD or lose.

  3. #53
    El Vikingo's Avatar
    El Vikingo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,358
    Ponder makes an average Qb looks like Peyton fricking Manning.

    Cant wait to see his idiotic face cut ....
    El underdog.

  4. #54
    marshallvike's Avatar
    marshallvike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I was impressed seeing an offense that could actually ALMOST take advantage of having Adrian Peterson...Cassell needs to be the starter. End of discussion.

    The Defense, however, disappointed me once again. They continue to allow everyone to score on them seemingly at will....especially in the 4th Quarter. They almost gave this one away. I think the idea of approaching Winfield and trying to bring him in is almost REQUIRED at this point, as this squad has been living or dying on luck....and we're only lucky 1/4 of the time.

    Caine
    +1
    Why must you defend everything this FO does....to the point of making your self look like a yes man.

  5. #55
    purplehelmut's Avatar
    purplehelmut is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central WV
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ikings-week-4/

    The longer version for your reading pleasure. Cassell graded out at -3.7. The worse grade this year for a Vikings QB. The most telling difference is likely the quicker "average to attempt" that Cassell had over Ponder. Here's their spiel if interested:
    Those boys need to reexamine their rating method. If they rated Cassell's performance below any of Ponder's this year there is a glitch in the system. Something is causing the stats to skew the result. Possible fumble losses and possible picks don't mean a hill of beans.

  6. #56
    Randy Moss's Avatar
    Randy Moss is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by purplehelmut View Post
    Those boys need to reexamine their rating method. If they rated Cassell's performance below any of Ponder's this year there is a glitch in the system. Something is causing the stats to skew the result. Possible fumble losses and possible picks don't mean a hill of beans.
    They do if you're trying to judge how good a quarterback was. As much as the Ponder-haters want to fight it, the reality is that his performance was Ponder-esc, but he happened to get lucky on a few plays.
    Last edited by Randy Moss; 10-01-2013 at 09:46 AM.

  7. #57
    purplehelmut's Avatar
    purplehelmut is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central WV
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Moss View Post
    They do if you're trying to judge how good a quarterback was. As much as the Ponder-haters want to fight it, the reality is that his performance was Ponder-esc, but he happened to get lucky on a few plays.
    "Phil, luck tells me something about a man...." from "North Dallas Forty". An INT or a FUM that didn't happen, didn't happen. His QBR was far higher than Ponder's. I'm not a Ponder hater per say. I just see that Cassell is a better passer than Ponder and made several passes Ponder never will be able to make. Plus Cassell hasn't had the advantages of being the guy like Ponder has, especially the advantage of a long leash and a short playbook. Is Cassell the long term answer? Probably not, but Ponder has had ample chance to show if he is, and he has not delivered.

  8. #58
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by purplehelmut View Post
    Those boys need to reexamine their rating method. If they rated Cassell's performance below any of Ponder's this year there is a glitch in the system. Something is causing the stats to skew the result. Possible fumble losses and possible picks don't mean a hill of beans.
    Just another perspective from a group that looks at each individual play and grades them with their subjectivity (which is of course human and inherently flawed). But it is an attempt to look beyond the box score stats and the final results.

    The best solution is to put Cassell in as the starter again at Carolina and see if he can continue to lead the offense. There is no doubt that our offense played better against Pittsburgh than it has all season, Pittsburgh's defense has given up 27.5 PPG (24th) almost as bad as ours. Carolina on the other hand has only given up 12 PPG (3rd). Ponder wasn't going up against good defenses either outside of Cleveland. So far this year, Cleveland is 9th at 17.5PPG, Chicago is 26th at 28.5 and Detroit is 22nd at 25.2.

    Carolina is averaging 22PPG on offense. This year we are 5th in scoring at 28.8PPG and 29th on defense with 30.8 PPG. Seems to me the biggest concern we have this year is on defense, until we get that under control I don't see us having much success.

  9. #59
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,910
    Those ratings are simply wrong...
    1) 7-10 against loaded front
    2) Ending the game 10 for 10
    3) Over 120 QB rating
    4) 2 td 0 ints
    5) First game without a turnover.
    6) 2 Wrs with over 100 yards
    7) A Wr with a score
    8) A WR with 2 scores
    And ponder played better. That site is now the onion.com

  10. #60
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by kevoncox View Post
    Those ratings are simply wrong...
    1) 7-10 against loaded front
    2) Ending the game 10 for 10
    3) Over 120 QB rating
    4) 2 td 0 ints
    5) First game without a turnover.
    6) 2 Wrs with over 100 yards
    7) A Wr with a score
    8) A WR with 2 scores
    And ponder played better. That site is now the onion.com
    What your pointing out is that Cassell had better results. What they are saying is that when they looked at how he performed on each play that he graded more negative than positive. If you read their analysis you will note that one of the areas they say may be flawed is not giving Cassell more credit for his shorter delivery time which may have led to better OL play and seemingly gave Cassell cleaner pockets than Ponder.

    Doesn't make them right or wrong, just needs to be taken in context.

    In the large scope of things, results are what matters and that's what the QBR is all about. If Cassell continues to get better results, he should be starting.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •