PDA

View Full Version : I dont want to complain but...



eelpout72
10-24-2005, 01:02 AM
On the final Packer's drive on 4th and 3 from the vikings 25 or so, why didnt the Vikings call time out immediately? It was highly unlikely that GB would have considered going for the first down while down 3 points. The vikes could have stopped the clock with 58 seconds left instead of letting the Packers wind the clock down to 28 seconds. This would have given the vikings offense more time to move down the field and perhaps get closer for a shorter field goal.

Dont get me wrong, Im quite happy that the vikes won and that Edinger had a great kick at the end, but the poor clock managment by the coaches easily could have cost them the game.

That being said.... go Vikes! whoo-hoo!

Mr. Purple
10-24-2005, 01:04 AM
no, they made the right choice. They let green bay use thier TO so they could have thier TO for thier drive which helped them win the game. Great move bye the coaching staff.

VikinginaCamaro
10-24-2005, 01:05 AM
Maybe the coaches were already making the plans for the OT stratagy.

audioghost
10-24-2005, 01:05 AM
"eelpout72" wrote:

On the final Packer's drive on 4th and 3 from the vikings 25 or so, why didnt the Vikings call time out immediately? It was highly unlikely that GB would have considered going for the first down while down 3 points. The vikes could have stopped the clock with 58 seconds left instead of letting the Packers wind the clock down to 28 seconds. This would have given the vikings offense more time to move down the field and perhaps get closer for a shorter field goal.

Dont get me wrong, Im quite happy that the vikes won and that Edinger had a great kick at the end, but the poor clock managment by the coaches easily could have cost them the game.

That being said.... go Vikes! whoo-hoo!


They did this because they only had 1 timeout....which they saved and used on the winning drive....without that timeout, that field goal doesn't happen and the Vikes go into OT with a 50/50 shot at getting the ball back....it was a great call....worked out perfectly.....

audioghost
10-24-2005, 01:10 AM
Anyone know how to change the NFL logo on the bottom left of my posts to a Viking logo??? Everyone else has one....WTF???

eelpout72
10-24-2005, 01:10 AM
"WilliamsonOfTroy" wrote:

no, they made the right choice. They let green bay use thier TO so they could have thier TO for thier drive which helped them win the game. Great move bye the coaching staff.

GB used their TO with 1 second left on the play clock so their time out use was irrelevent. At that point in the game, didnt the vikings still have 2 time outs? (i might be wrong here) If so, dont see why you would need to have 2 timeouts for the final drive. Seems much better to have a full minute for the final drive instead of 30 seconds.

midgensa
10-24-2005, 01:10 AM
You don't mean to complain ... but you did anyway!!
No problem though, I think we have explained it here. They wanted the timeout for when they had the ball and with it we were able to go to the middle of the field and still have time to run another play after that. For once it was very solid clock management.
Great new sig Audio!!!

ultravikingfan
10-24-2005, 01:16 AM
"audioghost" wrote:

Anyone know how to change the NFL logo on the bottom left of my posts to a Viking logo??? Everyone else has one....WTF???

You made a post about it and I answered it.

That was an option that carried over from the last site.

http://www.purplepride.org/vikes/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14936

TWill19
10-24-2005, 01:16 AM
we are still 2-4, thats not very good

Mr. Purple
10-24-2005, 01:20 AM
The vikings had 1 TO left if I remeber correctly. So they let greenbay use thiers and they kept theres which helped lead to the 56 yarder.



we're 2-4, but who gives a darn we just won a game lets have some fun, lord knows we deserve some fun in vikings land!

midgensa
10-24-2005, 01:20 AM
"TWill19" wrote:

we are still 2-4, thats not very good

Good god man ... :roll: ... we all know our record and we all know it is not that good. If you can't get excited on a day like this, please find something better to do than come on here and try and bring everyone down.

pigskinronin
10-24-2005, 01:21 AM
"eelpout72" wrote:


GB used their TO with 1 second left on the play clock so their time out use was irrelevent. At that point in the game, didnt the vikings still have 2 time outs? (i might be wrong here) If so, dont see why you would need to have 2 timeouts for the final drive. Seems much better to have a full minute for the final drive instead of 30 seconds.

Vikings had one timeout at that point; that timeout was huge for the Vikings in the final drive.

I'm with you though, I was thinking "call timeout, call it!" --- which would have left the Vikings with a little over 50 seconds and no timeouts. Favre kind of lingered on the field like they might try something --- which possibly kept the Vikings from calling timeout.

Huge play to me was when the Pack converted for the first down and the receiver ran out of bounds. The Pack could had run the clock down to 3 ticks before kicking :evil4: gack lol.

What a wonderful drive with only 20 seconds!

midgensa
10-24-2005, 01:22 AM
"WilliamsonOfTroy" wrote:

The vikings had 1 TO left if I remeber correctly. So they let greenbay use thiers and they kept theres which helped lead to the 56 yarder.



we're 2-4, but who gives a darn we just won a game lets have some fun, lord knows we deserve some fun in vikings land!

In the pic you can tell how frickin far away the goalposts are because it looks like they are below the defensive lineman's heads! Great photo!!

6-KINGS
10-24-2005, 01:32 AM
"TWill19" wrote:

we are still 2-4, thats not very good

You strike me as a "Glass is half empty kinda guy"

Tell ya what, what if this effort is the one that sparks a big run of wins.
Could happen.
See now that is a "Glass is half full" kinda guy.

Just a thought.

audioghost
10-24-2005, 01:32 AM
Without that Time Out, I don't know if we win the game.....that time out is the lone reason why we got a chance at the field goal....without it, the clock runs down to less than 8 seconds and we have to throw up a hail mary instead of a field goal....

LuckyVike
10-24-2005, 01:37 AM
"midgensa" wrote:

"TWill19" wrote:

we are still 2-4, thats not very good

Good god man ... :roll: ... we all know our record and we all know it is not that good. If you can't get excited on a day like this, please find something better to do than come on here and try and bring everyone down.

Agreed.

DaunteHOF
10-24-2005, 01:40 AM
we only had 1 TO thats why

aceclown
10-24-2005, 01:53 AM
I think everyone is missing the point. If we would have used our last timeout before the packers' field goal, we would have had 1:04 left on the clock. Instead we let over 30 seconds run off down to :28 secs. Our last timeout was used after a 15 yard gain to Moore which stopped the clock with :08 (ball at 50).

Think about it, if we would have called timeout with 1:04 left, we would have started our drive with about :56 secs left. If we complete that same 15 yd pass to Moore and spiked it, we would have had it at the 50 with about :40 secs, not :08. In the game with :08 we got to the 39 leaving :02 left on the clock. Had we used our timeout earlier we would have been at the 39 yd. line with :32.

So would you rather be at the 39 yd line with :02, or :32 (give or take a few seconds). Either way we have no timeouts. With :32 secs we could have got at least a little closer, but no, letting nearly 40 secs off the clock was the right choice... our coaches are apes.

audioghost
10-24-2005, 01:57 AM
"aceclown" wrote:

I think everyone is missing the point. If we would have used our last timeout before the packers' field goal, we would have had 1:04 left on the clock. Instead we let over 30 seconds run off down to :28 secs. Our last timeout was used after a 15 yard gain to Moore which stopped the clock with :08 (ball at 50).

Think about it, if we would have called timeout with 1:04 left, we would have started our drive with about :56 secs left. If we complete that same 15 yd pass to Moore and spiked it, we would have had it at the 50 with about :40 secs, not :08. In the game with :08 we got to the 39 leaving :02 left on the clock. Had we used our timeout earlier we would have been at the 39 yd. line with :32.

So would you rather be at the 39 yd line with :02, or :32 (give or take a few seconds). Either way we have no timeouts. With :32 secs we could have got at least a little closer, but no, letting nearly 40 secs off the clock was the right choice... our coaches are apes.

Dude, either way we won! Who cares, the call worked out and it provided a fitting ending to a game with Green Bay....get over it!

Lotza
10-24-2005, 01:59 AM
if you don't wanna complain......... don't!

Ltrey33
10-24-2005, 02:00 AM
"Vikes2611" wrote:

"midgensa" wrote:

"TWill19" wrote:

we are still 2-4, thats not very good

Good god man ... :roll: ... we all know our record and we all know it is not that good. If you can't get excited on a day like this, please find something better to do than come on here and try and bring everyone down.

Agreed.

Yeah, we all know we're 2-4...but we beat the freaking Packers! It wasn't luck or flukie stuff that happened either. We had a bonafide second half comeback where both sides of the ball looked very good. You have to get excited about that!

nephilimstorm
10-24-2005, 02:04 AM
damn...what a great game and what a leg by edinger...nothing to complain about..great game by pat and e.j...was great to watch the second half

midgensa
10-24-2005, 02:11 AM
"aceclown" wrote:

I think everyone is missing the point. If we would have used our last timeout before the packers' field goal, we would have had 1:04 left on the clock. Instead we let over 30 seconds run off down to :28 secs. Our last timeout was used after a 15 yard gain to Moore which stopped the clock with :08 (ball at 50).

Think about it, if we would have called timeout with 1:04 left, we would have started our drive with about :56 secs left. If we complete that same 15 yd pass to Moore and spiked it, we would have had it at the 50 with about :40 secs, not :08. In the game with :08 we got to the 39 leaving :02 left on the clock. Had we used our timeout earlier we would have been at the 39 yd. line with :32.

So would you rather be at the 39 yd line with :02, or :32 (give or take a few seconds). Either way we have no timeouts. With :32 secs we could have got at least a little closer, but no, letting nearly 40 secs off the clock was the right choice... our coaches are apes.

It has already been explained, but here we go ... if we use that timeout, it SEVERELY limits anything we can do, as well as forces us to get spikes and forces us to make sure we can get our field goal team on the field in an awkward situation. It is almost always better to have the ball with a timeout than to have 30 more seconds and no timeouts ... I see where you are coming from, but I would bet 95 percent of the coaches in this league would have done the same. Using the timeout in this way helped most.

grpape
10-24-2005, 05:39 AM
Tice just wanted to see what kind of leg ol' Edinger had.

enlvikeman
10-24-2005, 05:57 AM
"midgensa" wrote:

"aceclown" wrote:

I think everyone is missing the point. If we would have used our last timeout before the packers' field goal, we would have had 1:04 left on the clock. Instead we let over 30 seconds run off down to :28 secs. Our last timeout was used after a 15 yard gain to Moore which stopped the clock with :08 (ball at 50).

Think about it, if we would have called timeout with 1:04 left, we would have started our drive with about :56 secs left. If we complete that same 15 yd pass to Moore and spiked it, we would have had it at the 50 with about :40 secs, not :08. In the game with :08 we got to the 39 leaving :02 left on the clock. Had we used our timeout earlier we would have been at the 39 yd. line with :32.

So would you rather be at the 39 yd line with :02, or :32 (give or take a few seconds). Either way we have no timeouts. With :32 secs we could have got at least a little closer, but no, letting nearly 40 secs off the clock was the right choice... our coaches are apes.

It has already been explained, but here we go ... if we use that timeout, it SEVERELY limits anything we can do, as well as forces us to get spikes and forces us to make sure we can get our field goal team on the field in an awkward situation. It is almost always better to have the ball with a timeout than to have 30 more seconds and no timeouts ... I see where you are coming from, but I would bet 95 percent of the coaches in this league would have done the same. Using the timeout in this way helped most.


my thoughts exactly

snowinapril
10-24-2005, 06:07 AM
"DaunteHOF" wrote:

we only had 1 TO thats why

Technically it wasn't a TO, but the fumble on 4th and short, TO by downs.

Those two things even out the 2 missed FGs by Longwell.

But I understand what you are saying. It helps that we didn't give up the TOs in our own territory.

Both did turn into points for GB, 10 points to be exact.

Why isn't anyone complaining about Moore's Fumble like Bennett's Fumbles? Moore did a great job, I am happy with him as the starter. Bennett is still someone that can contribute and has a place on this team.

snowinapril
10-24-2005, 06:09 AM
"enlvikeman" wrote:

"midgensa" wrote:

"aceclown" wrote:

I think everyone is missing the point. If we would have used our last timeout before the packers' field goal, we would have had 1:04 left on the clock. Instead we let over 30 seconds run off down to :28 secs. Our last timeout was used after a 15 yard gain to Moore which stopped the clock with :08 (ball at 50).

Think about it, if we would have called timeout with 1:04 left, we would have started our drive with about :56 secs left. If we complete that same 15 yd pass to Moore and spiked it, we would have had it at the 50 with about :40 secs, not :08. In the game with :08 we got to the 39 leaving :02 left on the clock. Had we used our timeout earlier we would have been at :lol: the 39 yd. line with :32.

So would you rather be at the 39 yd line with :02, or :32 (give or take a few seconds). Either way we have no timeouts. With :32 secs we could have got at least a little closer, but no, letting nearly 40 secs off the clock was the right choice... our coaches are apes.

It has already been explained, but here we go ... if we use that timeout, it SEVERELY limits anything we can do, as well as forces us to get spikes and forces us to make sure we can get our field goal team on the field in an awkward situation. It is almost always better to have the ball with a timeout than to have 30 more seconds and no timeouts ... I see where you are coming from, but I would bet 95 percent of the coaches in this league would have done the same. Using the timeout in this way helped most.


my thoughts exactly

I still think it was an accident. Tice must have thought that he didn't have any timeouts or ne probably would have mad ethe mistake of taking it before GB took theirs. LOL HA HA HA HA

Deronn
10-24-2005, 06:28 AM
Tice uses his final timeout the right way, and some of us are still complaining!! We Vikes fans are never satisfied :grin:

That type of clock/time out mis-management is what has cost us 2-3 games each season he has been coach. It's nice when he gets it right.

Articnv
10-24-2005, 06:34 AM
dont complain. we won the time out was saved prooplery good call

gregair13
10-24-2005, 07:08 AM
mabye it was all in tice's plan so daunte didnt have more time with the ball. ha. now that is negative.
personally, who cares, we won. and the way we won made it way better.

UTVikfan
10-24-2005, 07:29 AM
I love how there are posts on different threads where people say Pep musta given a half time speech. And now Tice is confused about his timeouts. That is great. WTG, guys. If he DOES out coach the other guy, kick him in the nuts. He is down and out, so I can imagine a cheapshot won't hurt none.

I for one was YELLING!! Time out! Time out! I couldn't figure it. My sister was asking, "Why don't they call a timeout?" I had no answer.

I love being really wrong. I personally woulda lost that game.

singersp
10-24-2005, 02:19 PM
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune;

Tice left fuming over alleged second-guessing

Last update: October 23, 2005 at 9:47 PM

A key clock-management decision Sunday caused considerable consternation throughout the Metrodome, including a box that included owner Zygi Wilf -- a turn of events that left Vikings coach Mike Tice fuming after his team's victory over Green Bay.

Tice vigorously defended his decision to preserve the Vikings' final timeout, a move that enabled Green Bay to run some 30 seconds off the clock before Ryan Longwell's game-tying 39-yard field goal with 28 seconds remaining.

Wilf was sitting in the box of Rob Brzezinski, Vikings vice president of football operations, during the play. The box sits adjacent to the Vikings coaches booth, separated only by plexiglas. Coaches could hear people in the Wilf/Brzezinski booth loudly calling for Tice to call a timeout. Afterward, Tice implied that team officials around Wilf incited the second-guessing.

"Coaches coach," Tice said. "Trainers train. Players play. Equipment managers manage equipment. And vice presidents should vice president their departments and let us do our job on the field."

Tice said he felt vindicated after the Vikings used their final timeout during the ensuing two-play drive that ended in Paul Edinger's game-winning 56-yard field goal.

Napoleon Harris tackled Green Bay running back Tony Fisher at the Vikings 20-yard line with about 1 minute remaining in the fourth quarter. Tice said the decision to let the clock go down "six in one hand and half a dozen in the other" -- meaning the Vikings would have had more time to mount their final drive but no timeouts and therefore fewer passing options. Instead, the Vikings spent much of the next 30 seconds making sure they had 11 men on the field for Longwell's kick; 6-8 offensive lineman Bryant McKinnie was a last-second insertion in hopes he could block the kick.

Wilf declined to speak with reporters after the game.

KEVIN SEIFERT

SamDawg84
10-24-2005, 02:43 PM
i love to complain lol.... i spend like all day complaining about stuff usally (mostly about danny lol)

singersp
10-24-2005, 02:48 PM
"SamDawg84" wrote:

i love to complain lol.... i spend like all day complaining about stuff usally (mostly about danny lol)

We'll have to rember that when it comes time for you to get a title! Webby, make a note. :lol:

V4L
10-24-2005, 03:37 PM
"singersp" wrote:

"SamDawg84" wrote:

i love to complain lol.... i spend like all day complaining about stuff usally (mostly about danny lol)

We'll have to rember that when it comes time for you to get a title! Webby, make a note. :lol:


Biggest complainer EVER! I swear he is part female.. And I tell him to quit complaining and he says he wasn't.. Now he just admitted that he complains all the time! Thanks! :lol:

CanadaViking
10-24-2005, 04:21 PM
As far has this one goes, who cares what any of us fans thought!! He made a call and look at the results. We always b!tch about calls the coaches make when they burn us and now we're doing it after a great victory, come on now.

This shouldn't even be a thread, period..........

I for one am just as happy as I was sad last week!
Cheers!

ultravikingfan
10-24-2005, 05:10 PM
"CanadaViking" wrote:

As far has this one goes, who cares what any of us fans thought!! He made a call and look at the results. We always b!tch about calls the coaches make when they burn us and now we're doing it after a great victory, come on now.

This shouldn't even be a thread, period..........

I for one am just as happy as I was sad last week!
Cheers!

Your complaining about us complaining.

How ironic. :???:

snowinapril
10-24-2005, 05:15 PM
"Deronn" wrote:

Tice uses his final timeout the right way, and some of us are still complaining!! We Vikes fans are never satisfied :grin:

That type of clock/time out mis-management is what has cost us 2-3 games each season he has been coach. It's nice when he gets it right.

I was certainly pissed on that TD challenge by Tice, I was worried about the Time Outs at that point and Meathead wasn't. Challenge on a whim is the motto, because there was no way that that catch was even close to challengable.

eelpout72
10-24-2005, 05:39 PM
ok, my bad, i thought that they had 2 timeouts at that point.

Definitely better to save the last timeout for the final drive as it gives the offense the option to throw down the middle. Props to the coaches! Am i allowed to rescind my complaint?