With Christian Ponder yet to pass the concussion tests required for him to suit up, and Josh Freeman still mysteriously riding the bench, the Vikings sound as if they’ll ride the hot hand of Matt Cassel for at least another week.

The weekly quarterback updates this season have been almost as tiring as all of the losses, but it is still important to note that Cassel will get the nod against Baltimore this week.  As of now, Leslie Frazier acknowledged that Cassel will start and Freeman will back him up, but qualified his statements by saying that could change should Ponder make quick progress.

“More than likely, Matt Cassel is going to end up being our starter for this ballgame,” Frazier said. “We’ll proceed accordingly, with Josh (Freeman) as his backup, understanding where Christian is, in trying to pass those tests. … It’ll probably be tough (for Ponder). If he were able to practice (Thursday), maybe — but we’re not planning on it.”

By pretty much every unit of measurement, Cassel has been the Vikings most successful quarterback this season, and for a coach who desperately needs to accumulate some wins it seems like the most logical choice by a long shot.

38 COMMENTS

  1. Christian Ponder must be a great practice QB. And they are thinking that one of these days it will translate to the games…that’s the only explanation.

    • Or Ponder could be getting Den els coffee and shining his shoes. BTW did I get banned? Won’t take comments from my desktop but will from my phone.

  2. Hearing that the Henderson kid was made the middle LB simply because they hadn’t gotten one is very disappointing, especially with the knowledge of defense that Denzel has. We have sorely paid for that.

    I’m glad that Cassell is getting the start. Wanna see what he can do one week later, as that was a pretty sweet performance last week. Actually I won’t see how he does. I’ll be in an airplane during the game. Can I count on you guys for a thorough and fair analysis of whoever plays QB Sunday?

    • Yep, looking back….bad move. Little bro is not the answer at MLB. Bad management.
      Thorough? Yeah. Fair? No.

    • count on us, coach? of course! we’re gonna lie through our teeth and tell you he was great!

      btw, make sure you wear two pairs of sunglasses and tell ‘em on the airplane you picked the wrong day to quit vikings’ games

  3. Heard that Chris Cook is planning to appeal his fine for grabbing a ref. How stupid is this guy, anyway? That almost qualifies as “concussion-like symptoms”.

    • I don’t think it’s that bad, he didn’t do anything he tapped the guy to get his attention. That ref is a whiner.

    • Coach, I agree with Skol on this. While I don’t care for Cooks play, I don’t think what he did is fine worthy.
      I do believe him getting kicked out helped our Defense, Bears got zero after that.

      • guys, it only LOOKS like cook didn’t do anything so bad, but he was actually reaching for the ref’s throat, he just has a problem with positioning his hands. otherwise, i agree

      • Any thoughts on what he might have also said to this “whiney” referee? Sorry guys, this guy turns out to be a much bigger reach than Ponder. Looks like a fourth founder with an attitude at best.

  4. The NFL banned a commercial from Daniel Defense during the superbowl. The commercial was about a returning service member with his wife and child saying he’d defend them like his country. The NFL usually tries to stay neutral in politics but they are taking an obvious stance here.

    I just find it ridiculous the NFL is taking an obvious stand against the second amendment especially from an origination that chains to be neutral.

    Time to revoke their tax exempt status.

    • I agree with revoking their tax exempt status, but for, what I guess, are far different reasons.

      The rest of the post is tough for me to piece together.

      “The local gun manufacturer (Daniel Defense) had its request for commercial time during the game, in eight regional markets totaling $500,000, denied due to the NFL’s restriction on advertising of firearms, ammunition and other weapons.”

      So, one non-government entity followed it’s own restrictions to not advertise for another non-government entity, and that flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment? Amendment reads thus:

      “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

      So, the NFL is the government, infringing on the rights of a private arms manufacturer, who is somehow also a well regulated militia? Or perhaps a people bearing arms?

      I may need the remedial training, as I cannot seem to jump that particular gaping chasm.

      • There were no firearms advertised in the ad, just the company name which goes along with the NFL’s policy for sporting goods stores. The NFL isn’t infringing on the rights but they are obviously opposing them by banning firearm advertisement.
        Not trying to start a political thing on the 2nd amendment, just saying the NFL claims to be politically neutral but is taking a left wing stance here.

        • Doesn’t matter if they show a gun or not, the company is an arms manufacturer. The NFL has a “restriction on advertising of firearms, ammunition and other weapons.” An arms manufacturer clearly falls under that particular restriction.

          Like it or not, gun rights are a somewhat politically charged issue, and the NFL is avoiding that particular politically charged issue by advertising neither for or against. If they advertised FOR gun control (which they do not), then you might have a point, but to pretend that avoiding the issue altogether is somehow “left wing” is beyond absurd.

          Your point is that a private company should be forced to advertise FOR a gun manufacturer, or they are “left wing?” Not exactly free enterprise, no?

          • Unless I’m mistaken the NFL allowed Bob Costas to go on quite the anti-gun rant last year during Sunday Night Football, so yeah I’m seeing a double standard. Also if you continue reading the list of restrictions you’ll see many other commercials advertised that are against their policies.

            • A Bob Costas personal Op-Ed piece via NBC Sports after the Belcher incident is not quite the same as a paid advertisement OK’d by the NFL, no? In any case, I think the surprisingly disrespectful interview by O’Reilly of the President at halftime more than balanced that particular equation.

              I’m honestly not sure what other commercials aired are against the NFL policies. I can’t say either way on that one. What other restrictions do they have? I seriously don’t know.

              • You bring up Barack’s interview which unlike Costas had nothing to do with the commercial and gun rights advocacy. I’m not trying to make this a gop vs dfl thing simply stating that the NFL has been establishing a record of supporting gun control over gun rights.
                As for other commercials, the NFL also has restrictions on “overly sexual commercials”. Half the superbowl commercials would be in that category(especially that disgusting makeout commercial from last year).

                • You’re a tough one to corner, stop wiggling around. You brought up the 2nd amendment, and you brought up the supposed “left wing” connotations thereof. When Bob Costas said what he said, he said them under employ of NBC, not the NFL. They are two separate entities, can we agree on that much? To pretend that the NFL gave the big OK to what he said is disingenuous at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

                  I think we can agree one one thing, however. The NFL certainly has a relaxed standard towards “overly sexual commercials.” Though, admittedly, I’m rarely offended by such things.

                    • I didn’t broach the subject, and I’ve already admitted I suck at not responding. I gave up pretending that would happen.

                      Besides, isn’t an echo chamber boring?

  5. my heart pounds and my head hurts

    the changes with cole and our LBs and naming cassel the starting QB has me thinking we might have a chance to win sunday, and that’s emotionally exciting, but logically not good for our draft position. such is our fate this season

    • Tombs,

      Was that the equivalent to “mom! hit hit me first !” ?

      By the way is it true that “Left Wing Liberal” QB from Oregon isn’t coming out ( I should be more clear…declaring for the NFL draft) this year? What are the odds he will change his mind? Freds thinks once a couple agents convince him he may be the first QB taken, his mind will be changed.

      Here’s to hoping Pat Cassell, breaks a finger nail and we see Josh Freedman at QB, it would be entertaining if nothing else.

  6. jags win fourth game tonight, texans lose and stay at two wins. idk what happened to the texans this year, but would they take a QB in the draft?

    • of the four teams ahesd of us in the draft, I believe Houston and Tampa Bay would be the ones to pick a first round QB……Wash and Atlanta are set…

  7. so AD wouldn’t mind finishing his career in Texas…….Houston has the same QB problems as us which leaves Dallas……do ya think having AD still in the NFC would influence that trade? and I’ve been saying “trade him” since “before” his new contract…….yes, he’s the greatest, but you don’t give 100 mil to a RB when you don’t have a QB….or a playoff team roster…..

    side question: if we win 2-3 games of the last 4 (we won’t) with Cassell, is that a positive or negative for Frazier, looking at how the whole year has been handled?

Leave a Reply