Minnesota tanks game

[onbrake]

Why would the vikings tank the game with the Packers on deck makes no sense.

[stevegrab]

simple, worse record = better draft pick

 

By losing to the Giants they get even with another team that was behind (ahead) of them. How else to you explain trotting out Freeman who was so poorly prepared to play. Even Ponder with his supposedly lesser skill set could at least have audibled once, and made the defense think he might be able to do something so they wouldn't load the box to stuff AP.

[delusions of grandeur]

At first, I thought this was a bit preposterous to think they're tanking, since if they thought Freeman could be the future (why would they trade for him if they didn't), then it was more likely they were throwing him to the wolves to get him valuable reps, not just to tank by throwing him in before he was ready... But maybe it's both, hedging your bets either way...

 

Now they can see with their own eyes that a change of scenery probably isn't going to make a difference (I mean, I get that it's really tough to come in and play in a system you're unfamiliar with, and the nerves might have contributed to inaccuracy, but those throws were so far off the mark for an NFL QB, it's really tough to see a turn-around). Add to that, they probably just shattered whatever little confidence he had left after getting dumped by the Bucs.

 

So now they've got a guy they can still claim they want to mold as the "future" (since it's obvious that the other QBs are not), yet somehow be worse in the process and be a lock for a real QB in the draft. Not sure they planned it that way, but they're pretty much locked into that route now.

Edited October 22, 2013 by delusions of grandeur

[Cowboyz1]

There going to tank next week too. Freeman to start next week according to the Coach. I just don't understand that move. The team is going to revolt and just may beat the kid on the way home if they're not careful. If you watch the sideline, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY from the 2nd quarter on would sit next to Freeman on the bench. Normally you see receivers or backs or somebody besides a coach talking with their QB. But not last night.

[Gopher]

At first, I thought this was a bit preposterous to think they're tanking, since if they thought Freeman could be the future (why would they trade for him if they didn't), then it was more likely they were throwing him to the wolves to get him valuable reps, not just to tank by throwing him in before he was ready... But maybe it's both, hedging your bets either way...

 

Now they can see with their own eyes that a change of scenery probably isn't going to make a difference (I mean, I get that it's really tough to come in and play in a system you're unfamiliar with, and the nerves might have contributed to inaccuracy, but those throws were so far off the mark for an NFL QB, it's really tough to see a turn-around). Add to that, they probably just shattered whatever little confidence he had left after getting dumped by the Bucs.

 

So now they've got a guy they can still claim they want to mold as the "future" (since it's obvious that the other QBs are not), yet somehow be worse in the process and be a lock for a real QB in the draft. Not sure they planned it that way, but they're pretty much locked into that route now.

The part in bold is what I don't get. Starting him now essentially burns whatever bridge they were hoping to build with Freeman. There is no way in hell that anybody is going to go through what he did last night, and not let it affect them going forward. I'm convinced it was Frazier's way of revolting against upper management's decision to bring in Freeman in the first place (knowing that, either way, his days in MIN are numbered). I don't know how else to explain it.

[onbrake]

They could of won that game yesterday and this weeks game would of meant something.I think they know Freeman stinks and they are going after a QB with the first overall pick.

[stethant]

Nothing about this decision makes any sense. Frazier doesn't strike me as the type to further wreck his football team to make a point with management. Jeff Fisher yes - Frazier no. The most logical explanation is that someone actually thought this was a good idea that gave the team the best chance to win. That person needs to be found and removed - not necessarily fired but at least removed from a position where they get to make these types of decisions in future.

 

They should've stuck with Cassel until Freeman had a chance to thoroughly learn and process their offense. Now, they're stuck in a pack of honda.

Edited October 22, 2013 by stethant

[Gopher]

They could of won that game yesterday and this weeks game would of meant something.I think they know Freeman stinks and they are going after a QB with the first overall pick.

 

Would have meant something in what regard? It's not like they were going to turn a 1-4 start into a playoff berth. I think the thing that a lot of people are/were forgetting is that the Vikings had no business being in the playoffs last year. They were a team that nearly lost to Jacksonville (in the Metrodome). They were the benefactor of a very friendly schedule, and got a few breaks along the way, and basically snuck into the playoffs when nobody else seemed to want the last spot. The playoff game pretty much showed how much they belonged in the playoffs... They didn't. So, let's not kid ourselves... If the Vikes had any shot at making the playoffs this year, they needed to win at least a couple of those first four games, all of which they lost. Had they beaten Detroit, and not given away the Chicago and/or Cleveland games, they might have had a shot. But, predictably, they lost them all, and their season was pretty much done by their bye in Week 5.

 

So, yeah, they might be tanking at this point (although I doubt it). It's more plausible that they are just making more and more questionable decisions, which is what got them in this spot in the first place. But, they wouldn't be tanking if they legitimately thought there was any chance they could make the playoffs. NFL teams don't do that. They're either fighting for the playoffs, or they're not, and in most cases, teams fight until they're mathematically eliminated (and in many cases, even after that). Tanking, per se, is pretty rare (although there's a lot of gray area, in terms of just how hard a 4-10 team tries to win, compared to a team fighting for a wild card spot).

[Scorcher]

They could of won that game yesterday and this weeks game would of meant something.I think they know Freeman stinks and they are going after a QB with the first overall pick.

 

 

As far as bad to mediocre QB's they already had plenty to choose from. What they did was a great disservice to the fan base, AP and especially Freeman.

[Gopher]

Nothing about this decision makes any sense. Frazier doesn't strike me as the type to further wreck his football team to make a point with management. Jeff Fisher yes - Frazier no. The most logical explanation is that someone actually thought this was a good idea that gave the team the best chance to win. That person needs to be found and removed - not necessarily fired but at least removed from a position where they get to make these types of decisions in future.

 

They should've stuck with Cassel until Freeman had a chance to thoroughly learn and process their offense. Now, they're stuck in a pack of honda.

 

I pretty much agree with you, but either way, it doesn't add up. I've just read and heard (in multiple places today, mostly local sources) that Frazier didn't like the Freeman move, and his decision to start Freeman was partially a result of him not agreeing with the move. To what extent it might have been a retaliatory move, or a revolt of sorts (on Frazier's part), I really have no idea. It's hard to picture that taking place, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's any more difficult to believe than the alternative (which is that someone was so dense that they actually thought Freeman gave them the best chance to win last night). I don't think we ever hear Frazier actually say what's on his mind. He's a company guy, who says what you want to hear... Excited to have Josh on the team, still have high hopes for Ponder, etc. Those two things alone are contradictory, which makes me think that the guy never really says what he's thinking.

 

I'd like to think that, as you said, somebody actually thought starting Freeman was the right move. Of course, that pretty much means that whoever made that decision knows less than you and I do, in terms of what makes a good football decision. I mean, come on... As soon as I read that Freeman was starting, I thought to myself "This is going to end badly." I didn't think it would be quite as bad as it was last night, but there was no way that it was going to produce a good result, at least not in terms of last night's game. So, again, was the person making the decision that naive/misguided, or was there some other motive? Either way, it's pretty scary.

[delusions of grandeur]

I pretty much agree with you, but either way, it doesn't add up. I've just read and heard (in multiple places today, mostly local sources) that Frazier didn't like the Freeman move, and his decision to start Freeman was partially a result of him not agreeing with the move. To what extent it might have been a retaliatory move, or a revolt of sorts (on Frazier's part), I really have no idea. It's hard to picture that taking place, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's any more difficult to believe than the alternative (which is that someone was so dense that they actually thought Freeman gave them the best chance to win last night). I don't think we ever hear Frazier actually say what's on his mind. He's a company guy, who says what you want to hear... Excited to have Josh on the team, still have high hopes for Ponder, etc. Those two things alone are contradictory, which makes me think that the guy never really says what he's thinking.I'd like to think that, as you said, somebody actually thought starting Freeman was the right move. Of course, that pretty much means that whoever made that decision knows less than you and I do, in terms of what makes a good football decision. I mean, come on... As soon as I read that Freeman was starting, I thought to myself "This is going to end badly." I didn't think it would be quite as bad as it was last night, but there was no way that it was going to produce a good result, at least not in terms of last night's game. So, again, was the person making the decision that naive/misguided, or was there some other motive? Either way, it's pretty scary.

 

Agreed, I think when teams "tank", it's like how dynasty owners can legitimately throw in the towel, you just don't make any moves for the now over the future, to sacrifice draft position for a futile season.

 

But that doesn't mean they're not trying to do their best. A coaching staff who tries to tank will likely be fired before they get to reap the benefits. Players who under perform will be cut. I think people forget that these people are still fighting for their very lucrative jobs, in a marketplace where rapid turnover is extremely common.

 

I guess it's possible in a situation like this that they might have talked with the owner before making such a crucial decision, and ensured that they weren't to blame if it backfired, "what do we have to lose?".... But like most cases where "tanking" s overused, I just don't think it made sense for them to start Freeman just to try to tank. More likely, their hope was that at some point in time he'd give them the best chance to win.

 

I think they still probably feel that (even if unlikely) he gives the best chance to win if he rebounds, and could even show he can be the QB of the future (again, as unlikely as that may be). Very little risk when your other QBs have shown that they're not the answer, and don't have near the upside that Freeman has shown in the past.

 

So I don't know if I'd say it's "pretty scary" for Vikings fans. Your absolute ceiling with Ponder was going to be beat in the playoffs, more likely probably just well enough. You're probably better off that they're willing to let the team sink or swim with Freeman, and find a franchise QB if/when it backfires.

 

 

(ETA: Sorry, formatting errors)

Edited October 22, 2013 by delusions of grandeur

[Gopher]

Your absolute ceiling with Ponder was going to be beat in the playoffs, more likely probably just well enough. You're probably better off that they're willing to let the team sink or swim with Freeman, and find a franchise QB if/when it backfires.

 

Right, which is why I wasn't entirely sold (or against) the Freeman move, long-term, assuming they do the right thing, and handle him with care (i.e. don't destroy his mental state, any further, before they have a chance to see if he's the answer). I don't think we can say, for sure, that it worked or didn't work, until probably a couple of years from now. My point is that nothing good could possibly come from starting Freeman last night. The potential negatives of throwing him in there far outweigh the potential positives (I don't think there are any, frankly). People can say that he might have played well (which would have been a positive), but I think anybody in their right mind knew that wasn't possibly going to happen... except for whoever decided to start him. That's the part that I'm saying is scary. They have somebody making decisions (and pretty important ones, at that) that most rational football fans could see was a bad idea. That what concerns me.

 

So, they throw Freeman in the lineup, totally unprepared, for what reason? To totally destroy his confidence (any further than it was already destroyed in TB)? I just don't see what good they thought could possibly come from that move. By mid first quarter, everybody in the building knew it was a bad move.... Frazier, Ponder, Cassel, Freeman, Jennings, Peterson, the fans... I could go on and on. The looks on all of their faces (well, except for stoic Frazier) was "You have got to be kidding me." Peterson facing 8 in the box. Jennings almost getting killed, then shaking his head in disbelief on the sidelines. Ponder and Cassel trying not to laugh at how stupid it was. Disaster.

[BillyBalata]

At first, I thought this was a bit preposterous to think they're tanking, since if they thought Freeman could be the future (why would they trade for him if they didn't), then it was more likely they were throwing him to the wolves to get him valuable reps, not just to tank by throwing him in before he was ready... But maybe it's both, hedging your bets either way...

 

Now they can see with their own eyes that a change of scenery probably isn't going to make a difference (I mean, I get that it's really tough to come in and play in a system you're unfamiliar with, and the nerves might have contributed to inaccuracy, but those throws were so far off the mark for an NFL QB, it's really tough to see a turn-around). Add to that, they probably just shattered whatever little confidence he had left after getting dumped by the Bucs.

 

 

 

 

let's start with the fact they did not trade for him.

 

Secondly, you guys listen to Gruden too much, he wasn't prepared? Maybe that had an affect on the game to a point, but seriously the guy has been in the NFL for a few years now, so what he had a few weeks off? He was missing wide open players by a mile, time and time again. He had the same time off Ponder had while he was injured, wait Ponder missed wrs when he is prepared... You can argue he didnt have the full play book maybe but to say they rushed him into the system is bull honda. Throw the ball to the open player, doesnt take much preparation to accomplish that.

 

Why would the vikings tank the game with the Packers on deck makes no sense.

 

if they are tanking, what freakin difference does it make who they are playing next week?

[stevegrab]

let's start with the fact they did not trade for him.

 

Secondly, you guys listen to Gruden too much, he wasn't prepared? Maybe that had an affect on the game to a point, but seriously the guy has been in the NFL for a few years now, so what he had a few weeks off? He was missing wide open players by a mile, time and time again. He had the same time off Ponder had while he was injured, wait Ponder missed wrs when he is prepared... You can argue he didnt have the full play book maybe but to say they rushed him into the system is bull honda. Throw the ball to the open player, doesnt take much preparation to accomplish that.

 

 

 

if they are tanking, what freakin difference does it make who they are playing next week?

 

Are you serious, you think it is that easy for a QB to join a team midseason and not have problems missing receivers. Ever heard of timing routes? Wouldn't those be harder for him with such limited time with those players?

 

You're right, that Gruden guy doesn't know anything, why should we listen to him

[BillyBalata]

Did you watch the game? Yea, that was the problem, their timing was off.

Edited October 23, 2013 by BillyBalata

[BeeR]

Teams don't "tank." The Colts nearly "tanked" themselves out of getting Luck awhile back. Nobody wants to lose.

[Jackass]

Teams don't "tank." The Colts nearly "tanked" themselves out of getting Luck awhile back. Nobody wants to lose.

 

 

The key word there is nearly.

[Savage Beatings]

I'm willing to bet that the decision to start Freeman was dictated to Frazier from on high. Frazier has always maintained that Ponder was his guy... even after he was "hurt" earlier this year. Plus starting Freeman so quickly after bringing him on board, before he had ANY chance to learn the offense, was an almost certain loss. Frazier pesonally can't afford to do anything but try to win every game. I'm sure Frazier knows that this is his last season, and he was probably told that he either starts Freeman immediately, or else they will bring in someone else who will start him. Frazier, being weak-willed and passive, rolled over and started Freeman so that he can keep his job through the end of the current season. Just a hunch.

[Gopher]

I'm willing to bet that the decision to start Freeman was dictated to Frazier from on high. Frazier has always maintained that Ponder was his guy... even after he was "hurt" earlier this year. Plus starting Freeman so quickly after bringing him on board, before he had ANY chance to learn the offense, was an almost certain loss. Frazier pesonally can't afford to do anything but try to win every game. I'm sure Frazier knows that this is his last season, and he was probably told that he either starts Freeman immediately, or else they will bring in someone else who will start him. Frazier, being weak-willed and passive, rolled over and started Freeman so that he can keep his job through the end of the current season. Just a hunch.

 

That makes the most sense, and Frazier does seem like the type to just do whatever he's told, rather than the type that would start Freeman out of spite. Either way, I think the decision to start him was misguided... Not really anything to potentially gain from it (like you said, almost a sure loss), while the negatives are pretty obvious. Not only the fact that Freeman's confidence could (and probably was) destroyed before he even gets a chance to learn the offense, but it's the type of decision that causes the rest of the team to really question what upper management is doing, as well.

[Gopher]

Did you watch the game? Yea, that was the problem, their timing was off.

 

I'm not a Freeman apologist (I've questioned the Freeman move since they first signed him, and I'm about 50/50 on whether or not it will blow up in their face), but timing is a huge part of playing QB at the NFL level. More often than not, they're throwing to spots, not "throwing to the open receiver." Were a bunch of Freeman's throws way off (over-throwing guys by 5-10 feet in some cases)? Absolutely, and in those particular cases, there was obviously more to it than just timing (he was simply not hitting his intended targets, and several were not even close).

 

All of that said, the truth is that he didn't stand a chance of being successful on Monday night. Nobody would have, given that situation, particularly if you factor in the plays that were called. It would be one thing if they had given the ball to Peterson 25 times, and limited the throws that Freeman had to make. But, they did the exact opposite. I'm actually shocked that they were able to keep the game close... If the Giants weren't so inept themselves, this year, it would have been a 4-5 TD deficit.

 

My personal opinion is that, as the game went on, he became more and more frustrated... and his accuracy reflected that. He's had better accuracy than that in the past. If he hadn't, the Vikings wouldn't have signed the guy. On Monday night, they put him in a position where he was guaranteed to fail, and he didn't handle it well. If anything, I'd say that speaks more to his ability to handle pressure/adversity, than it does his ability to throw an accurate ball.

[Big John]

ESPN is saying the coach just announced that Freeman has a concussion (if true, when did it happen?) and expecting Ponder to start.

[stethant]

ESPN is saying the coach just announced that Freeman has a concussion (if true, when did it happen?) and expecting Ponder to start.

 

I would LOVE to know the real circumstances around this decision, but perhaps we'll have to wait a while on that. Possibilities would be 1) he really is concussed (unlikely), 2) Coaches came to their senses, 3) player near-mutiny.

[Delicious_bass]

If they are just looking for an excuse not to start Freeman this weekend, I am surprised they would go the concussion route given all the added scrutiny/testing/etc around head injuries. Seems like it would be much easier to just say he's got a strained this or that sustained during the game Mon night and leave it at that

[onbrake]

Vikings still want to beat the Packers.

[Grogansghost]

I would LOVE to know the real circumstances around this decision, but perhaps we'll have to wait a while on that. Possibilities would be 1) he really is concussed (unlikely), 2) Coaches came to their senses, 3) player near-mutiny.

 

 

The fact that they didn't pull him during that performance on Monday night makes me buy the concussion explanation. I mean, if they could watch that and not act, why would anything else suddenly make them give a damn?

 

I don't see the people who allowed that performance to happen lying or exaggerating about an injury to save face because they clearly don't care what anyone else thinks.