NFL 2013 Season Week 4 Picks

I'm always gonna put my picks before everyone now

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9730220/minnesota-vikings-christian-ponder-matt-cassel-start

Ponder "broke his rib". Yeah, that's it, he's not getting benched. He's hurt, see, he's hurt.

Starting Cassel gets us no where, and Ponder isn't the problem. Conversely if we win in London it will probably be because we fix other things, and I'm sure Cassel will get the credit. Vikings have scored 81 points. That's 7th in the league. Outside of his first carry of the season the running game has been nothing but a down waster. While it isn't exactly like there's an MVP performance hiding in the stats somewhere, Ponder must be doing something right.

The next closest 0-3 team has 67 points (Washington), and lots of those were garbage time against the Packers. The Steelers have 43 points.

The point is the defense needs to get us a win or 2 when we put up 24 or 30 on the road, or 27 at home against the Browns. (Although that game more came down to the Browns pulling every trick they had to show they were still watchable)

Statistically, it's hard to find exactly what Ponder is doing right. He's 21st in the league in completion percentage, 22nd in yards, 18th in yards per attempt, he's thrown the 3rd most ints, all resulting in being 30th in passer rating. Obviously when you lose 2 games on last second touchdowns when you've already scored 27 or more points it means that your defense needs to step up and you could easily be a 2-1 team, but based on Ponder's line, you could also justifiably say that they are 7th in the league in points in spite of him. Or to say it less cynically, it isn't because of Ponder that they are 7th in the league in points. Maybe he isn't the problem, but he's not exactly playing like he's the solution either.

Regarding AP being a down-waster, it you take away the first carry of the season, his avg yards per carry is more like 2.9 instead of the 4.1 that he has. What happened to the Vikings O-line?

No idea, but they're one of the many "let's all stop pretending this is all Ponder" problems. Ponder has done a fair amount on the ground. The running game is crap, the offensive line is crap, the defense is crap (so it's not like it's just a matter of "got lots of chances').

I don't know where the effectiveness is hidden, and I'm not even saying he "looks" effective even if the stats don't bare it out, but he must be doing something, because those aren't 81 points from the defense and special teams.

The defense does have 10 takeaways, which usually means good starting field position (at least on those possessions), which could result in points that sort of are falling in your lap a little bit. But clearly, pretending that the Vikings problems would all be solved with a slightly better QB is silly. Even the Packers who have by lots of accounts the "best player in the league" (or at the very least, one of the best players, not to start some debate about some list), are 1-2.

(Although to be fair about the small sample of the first 3 games, the packers played 3 playoff teams, including 1 Super Bowl team, and the Vikings have played 3 teams that were a combined 19-29 last year. My point isn't to compare the Packers and the Vikings per se, in fact I'm pointing out the fact that I'm not comparing the two in my initial statement above by pointing to the differences in the statement that might lead one to think I'm making a comparison. I'm just stating that in the 3 game sample, the Vikings, who statistically have one of the worst QBs in the league this season are just 1 game worse than the Packers who statistically have one of the best QBs in the league this season.)

It's bad when the disclaimer is longer (and more unnecessary) than the statement you are trying to make.

The Vikings do have a return touchdown and a defensive touchdown, so 14 of those points are coming from the defense and special teams. The Vikings have 7 offensive touchdowns (passing or rushing), which is good for 13th in the league. Not terrible, but a better picture of offensive productivity than just points.

I took the NFL.com stats for offensive points and took only included rushing touchdowns, receiving tds, FGs, extra points, and 2 point conversions (excluded any non-offensive points). The Vikings are 12th, so at first glance they are at least above average.

81-14 = As many points as the next closest 0-3 team, counting whatever their D/Special teams did, and again, like 20 of the Redskin's points were of the too-little-too-late variety in the Packers-Redskins game.

Also the Vikings started with 2 road divisional games, so there is that.

Either way it's a moot point. Matt "people cheered when I got hurt so Brady Effing Quinn could take my spot" Cassel isn't an answer. The Vikings need to sink or swim with Ponder. If the running game picks up, which means the team cant just swarm the oline on every play, and Ponder gets half a second to pass once in a while, maybe he picks it up and the Vikings build on that.

If the answer is "ok, he's just bad" then the Vikings want to suck anyway. All going 7-9 instead of 5-11 gets you is a worse pick.

As it stands they've played poorly in all 3 games, one of which was of the "everything that could go wrong did, and at the worst time" vareity and they're still 3 differences away from a 3 and 0 team. 0-3 sucks, but if they put up this many points sucking, imagine what would happen if they ever didn't suck. Not exactly time to call it and commit to a qb in the draft again.

Sarah: Maybe the 49ers are terrible. This makes the Packers even more terrible than what they are and I don't want to think about that right now."

Browns held the Bengals to 6 points today in a win as well.