PDA

View Full Version : tice is a idiot for kickers



nodakvikesfan
09-01-2004, 02:42 AM
he had todd france in camp last year now he is ny giants kicker. gramtitca cut.(sp)

vikings minnesoulija
09-01-2004, 02:44 AM
westside!!!!!!!!!!

pepper 0n moss
09-01-2004, 02:46 AM
*an idiot.

vikings minnesoulija
09-01-2004, 02:49 AM
westside!!!!!!!!!

hawaiianvike21
09-01-2004, 03:37 AM
Hey soulja whats up with all these westside posts??? You aint in L.A are you. :lol:

vikings minnesoulija
09-01-2004, 03:50 AM
no im not from la but its still westside!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kleinsasser40
09-01-2004, 04:23 AM
Yeah, Tice didn't see the talent in him before he cut him, maybe he wasn't that talented a year ago though. I wouldn't go as far as calling him an idiot with kickers, when Denny left he was left with nothing because Gary Anderson was getting really old, he thought it was time to start up a new kicker which is pretty hard to do. Most good kickers out there are getting pretty old. Someone needs to start a new wave.

casper
09-01-2004, 04:25 AM
"nodakvikesfan" wrote:

he had todd france in camp last year now he is ny giants kicker. gramtitca cut.(sp)

Ok numbnuts so what :?: thats like saying he had lesnor in camp this year and he was a wrestler, what is the point

bigdogbovy
09-01-2004, 12:11 PM
"vikings minnesoulija" wrote:

no im not from la but its still westside!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eastside!!!!!! beyatch!!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

SKOL
09-01-2004, 09:26 PM
Some news on Eddie Johnson (I'm glad he's gone):

Chiefs | Johnson's Tryout Not Good - from www.KFFL.com
Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:14:31 -0700

KCChiefs.com reports free agent P Eddie Johnson (Bengals) had a tryout with the team Monday, Aug. 30, and the results were not very good. "He's a long ways away from being ready," head coach Dick Vermeil said. "You know, he'd only been kicking the last two weeks after his operation and rehab. He was miles off. He hit a few good ones: about one every six. I'm used to that ratio and I don't like it."

Webby
09-01-2004, 09:41 PM
nodack is a.....

TheMaineViking
09-01-2004, 10:41 PM
no tice is an idiot for preseason games. how he could allow those guys to stay in as long as they did against hte niners is beyond me. now we lose bennett for maybe the first two or three games of the season. smith suspended as well...hate to complain but is frustrates me that our two top backs are not available for maybe the first month of the season. what bad luck....

Webby
09-01-2004, 10:54 PM
well, if you think Tice is an idiot for keeping them in that long, then a majority of coaches are idiots. There are reasons to do so.

Unless all of you think we should just bench the players after 3 series every preseason game, cause then, you know, they will be so ready for the season. *dripping with sarcasm*

TheMaineViking
09-01-2004, 11:03 PM
um...no. most coaches did not keep their starters in the preseason games that long. and do you really think keeping them into the second half was going to make that big a difference in how prepared they are for the season? in all three preseason games the starters have shown they are very prepared. it was a bad call by tice, plain and simple.

Webby
09-01-2004, 11:12 PM
Umm, yeah. A lot of coaches, in game three, extend their starters the longest they do, and the game four is scrub time. Check around before condemning a well known practice. Its been in article after article about it. There is a reason for it.

Then again, maybe we should abolish preseason, right? Lets just start the season, sheesh. Protect them against everything no matter what! I say we put pads on the turf and wear tutus too. Maybe an ice cream social at half time.

Its a tough game and the injuries can happen on the first snap, or the 20th. No one knows, and long term readiness and strategy is more important. A well understood fact in the NFL.

whackthepack
09-01-2004, 11:17 PM
"TheMaineViking" wrote:

um...no. most coaches did not keep their starters in the preseason games that long. and do you really think keeping them into the second half was going to make that big a difference in how prepared they are for the season? in all three preseason games the starters have shown they are very prepared. it was a bad call by tice, plain and simple.


Some coaches kept their starters into the 4th quarter. Bud Grant used to have the starters play all the 3rd quarter in the third preseason game, was Bud and idiot?

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 03:06 AM
"webmaster" wrote:

Umm, yeah. A lot of coaches, in game three, extend their starters the longest they do, and the game four is scrub time. Check around before condemning a well known practice. Its been in article after article about it. There is a reason for it.

Then again, maybe we should abolish preseason, right? Lets just start the season, sheesh. Protect them against everything no matter what! I say we put pads on the turf and wear tutus too. Maybe an ice cream social at half time.

Its a tough game and the injuries can happen on the first snap, or the 20th. No one knows, and long term readiness and strategy is more important. A well understood fact in the NFL.




So do you think that most coaches would put their starters in, in the 3rd quarter, if their team gained 330 yards in the first half and held the opponents to 60? HELL NO! We dominated the first half and there was no reason for them to beout there in the 3rd, PERIOD. They didn'thave anything to prove against the 49ers 2nd team D.

Yes injuries can happen on any play, so wouldn't that mean that the more snaps you play, the more likely you are to get injured? So then why not cut down on that chance, especially when it looked like we were playing a highschool football team in the 1st half.

I fail to see what that one drive in the 2nd half did for our 1st team offense? Why did they not play more in the 3rd quarter? Can't use injury as an excuse here, because you won't let us use it as an excuse for them not to be out there at all in the 2nd half.

Given the situation of the game, STUPID STUPID STUPID move by tice and now we have to pay for that stupid move.

Each game is different and should be treated different, so to compare what other coaches do, to this game, isn't right. How many times do teams outgain their opponent by 270 yards in the 1st half?

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 03:10 AM
"whackthepack" wrote:

"TheMaineViking" wrote:

um...no. most coaches did not keep their starters in the preseason games that long. and do you really think keeping them into the second half was going to make that big a difference in how prepared they are for the season? in all three preseason games the starters have shown they are very prepared. it was a bad call by tice, plain and simple.


Some coaches kept their starters into the 4th quarter. Bud Grant used to have the starters play all the 3rd quarter in the third preseason game, was Bud and idiot?



First of all, is football today, the same as it was when grant was a coach? No. The game isn't the same today, so it really isn't fair to compare the 2.

Second, did you ever see a game where bud grant left his starters in the game, in the 2nd half, when his team outgained the other team 330 to 60 in the 1st half? I will go out on a limb here and say that answer is no.

Not a very good comparison here. Find me a coach that left his starters in during the 3rd quarter, when his team outgained the other team by 270, or even 200 yards, and that will be a good comparison.

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 03:15 AM
Since I am always quick to point out when tice does something stupid, which is fairly often, I can also admit when he does something correctly. He finally did the right thing and got rid of elling. I will commend the guy for that move, but again i still will not trust the guy this year, when we are in a close playoff game.

hawaiianvike21
09-02-2004, 04:22 AM
Did you watch that carolina/new england game? A lot of starters were in for a long ass time, a lot longer then we had our starters in the game.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it.

YOu think we had it bad, ask the eagles or the dolphins for example.

Del Rio
09-02-2004, 08:25 AM
There's no reason to worry about yards and points in pre season period.

Pre-season is the perfect time to keep your starters in that need work, and help them gell as a unit. No gives a crap about the outcome. So it's not unsportsman like to run up the score in pre-season.

It's supposed to serve as a confidence builder and to help find out who can play at this level. If the coach dares to keep a starter in the whole game, and feels he needs the work then so be it.

whackthepack
09-02-2004, 09:43 AM
"muchluv4moss" wrote:

"whackthepack" wrote:

"TheMaineViking" wrote:

um...no. most coaches did not keep their starters in the preseason games that long. and do you really think keeping them into the second half was going to make that big a difference in how prepared they are for the season? in all three preseason games the starters have shown they are very prepared. it was a bad call by tice, plain and simple.


Some coaches kept their starters into the 4th quarter. Bud Grant used to have the starters play all the 3rd quarter in the third preseason game, was Bud and idiot?




First of all, is football today, the same as it was when grant was a coach? No. The game isn't the same today, so it really isn't fair to compare the 2.

Second, did you ever see a game where bud grant left his starters in the game, in the 2nd half, when his team outgained the other team 330 to 60 in the 1st half? I will go out on a limb here and say that answer is no.

Not a very good comparison here. Find me a coach that left his starters in during the 3rd quarter, when his team outgained the other team by 270, or even 200 yards, and that will be a good comparison.







Tice announced before the game he was going to play his starters into the 3rd quarter (common practice in the preseason for almost all teams) and because Bennet was hit by a cheap shot (going for someones knee with your helmet with that much speed built up is a cheap shot), and because someone rolled up the back of Mckinneys leg is not Tice's FAULT (get over it)!

You want to say Tice is not the best coach (I agree but I think he will be a good coach in time), and you do not like him for things that he does, that's fine too (he makes some boneheaded moves. I will listen, I might agree and might not, but he was not at fault on this one. Injuries can happen in the 1st game of the preseason on the 1st play from scrimage, does that mean the coach was at fault? If you want to bitch about something bitch that the preseason is to long and should only be 2 games (know that I would agree with).

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 10:07 AM
"whackthepack" wrote:

"muchluv4moss" wrote:

"whackthepack" wrote:

"TheMaineViking" wrote:

um...no. most coaches did not keep their starters in the preseason games that long. and do you really think keeping them into the second half was going to make that big a difference in how prepared they are for the season? in all three preseason games the starters have shown they are very prepared. it was a bad call by tice, plain and simple.


Some coaches kept their starters into the 4th quarter. Bud Grant used to have the starters play all the 3rd quarter in the third preseason game, was Bud and idiot?




First of all, is football today, the same as it was when grant was a coach? No. The game isn't the same today, so it really isn't fair to compare the 2.

Second, did you ever see a game where bud grant left his starters in the game, in the 2nd half, when his team outgained the other team 330 to 60 in the 1st half? I will go out on a limb here and say that answer is no.

Not a very good comparison here. Find me a coach that left his starters in during the 3rd quarter, when his team outgained the other team by 270, or even 200 yards, and that will be a good comparison.







Tice announced before the game he was going to play his starters into the 3rd quarter (common practice in the preseason for almost all teams) and because Bennet was hit by a cheap shot (going for someones knee with your helmet with that much speed built up is a cheap shot), and because someone rolled up the back of Mckinneys leg is not Tice's FAULT (get over it)!

You want to say Tice is not the best coach (I agree but I think he will be a good coach in time), and you do not like him for things that he does, that's fine too (he makes some boneheaded moves. I will listen, I might agree and might not, but he was not at fault on this one. Injuries can happen in the 1st game of the preseason on the 1st play from scrimage, does that mean the coach was at fault? If you want to beeyatch about something beeyatch that the preseason is to long and should only be 2 games (know that I would agree with).




Jesus, how many times do I have to say this, I KNOW THAT MOST COACHES PLAY THEIR STARTERS WELL INTO THE 3RD QUARTER OF THE 3RD PRESEASON GAME!! Why does everyone have to tell me it is common, when I keep telling everyone I am not disputing that. What Tice actually said before the game was, that his starters would probably play into the 3rd quarter, but that it wasn't etched in stone that they would play in the 3rd. If 330 to 60 isn't enough to make him see there was no need for them to be out there, then what would?

How can you use injuries as an excuse for tice pulling his starters, yet when we try and say injuries are a reason not to put your starters out there in the 3rd, you tell us that injuries happen on every play, not just in the 3rd quarter?

Injuries can happen in the 1st preseason game on the first play, and obviously I don't see how a coach could be at fault there. But when they happen when your starters are playing in the 3rd quarter of a preseason game, after they made the 49ers look like a highschool team in the 1st half, then obviously the coach has a lot of blame. Injuries happen on every play, so why not limit the chance of injury, by not playing your guys, after they have totally dominated the 1st half?

Stop making this out to be a debate over playing starters in the 3rd quarter of the 3rd preseason game, or not playing them, because that isn't at all what I am argueing.

Go to the vikes/49ers game thread, and you will see a post by me, made during the 1st quarter maybe early 2nd, where I said that no way the starters should play in the 2nd half, because of how easily they were dominating the 1st half. So you can't tell me I am bitching because someone got hurt, when I said not to play them before it was even halftime.

330 yards to 60! Do you guys realize how dominating that is? STUPID STUPID STIPID!

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 10:09 AM
"hawaiianvike21" wrote:

Did you watch that carolina/new england game? A lot of starters were in for a long ass time, a lot longer then we had our starters in the game.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it.

YOu think we had it bad, ask the eagles or the dolphins for example.



Yeah, I actually did. I don't remeber either team dominating in the 1st half like we did either. There are circumstances where you DO NOT PLAY YOUR STARTERS IN THE 3RD OF THE 3RD PRESEASON GAME, and I for one, think the way we dominated was a very good circumstance.

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 10:14 AM
"Del Rio" wrote:

There's no reason to worry about yards and points in pre season period.

Pre-season is the perfect time to keep your starters in that need work, and help them gell as a unit. No gives a crap about the outcome. So it's not unsportsman like to run up the score in pre-season.

It's supposed to serve as a confidence builder and to help find out who can play at this level. If the coach dares to keep a starter in the whole game, and feels he needs the work then so be it.



Agreed, so did the starters not do a good enough job in the 1st half? Did daunte, moss, bennett, mckinnie, and the others show in the first half, that they needed work in the 2nd? No.

If the offensive line was looking bad, then hey, keep them out there with the 2nd team offense, no problem. But the O-line looked great in the first half and the whole preseason, so they had no reason to be out there. Bennett, daunte, moss clearly had no reason to be out there, after what they did in the 1st half and all of preseason. Sure I will admit, that burleson, cambell, and onterrio should have been out there, because they are young and need the reps. Not the same thing for every starter.

muchluv4smoot
09-02-2004, 10:19 AM
Please people, I don't need anymore arguements saying "injuries happen deal with it", because I know injuries happen on any play. What I also don't need is " it is common for the starters to play in the 3rd quarter of the 3rd preseason game" because i know that too.


Read and understand. I challenge anyone to find a team that dominated like we did in the 1st half of the 3rd preseason game, that had their starters out their in the 3rd quarter anyways. If you can't, then it is pointless to argue, because that is all I am argueing about.


WE MADE THE 49ERS LOOK LIKE A HIGHSCHOLL FOOTBALL TEAM IN THE 1ST HALF, THUS THERE WAS NO REASON TO PUT GUYS LIKE MOSS, DAUNTE, BENNETT, AND OUR O-LINE OUT THERE IN THE 3RD.

TheMaineViking
09-02-2004, 02:55 PM
and that is the bottom line. there was no need for bennett to be in as long as he was. of course tice is not completely to blame for the injuries to those guys but...gee let's see knowing bennett is injury prone would you keep him in there into the 3rd quarter of a preseason game?

did the rams play marshall faulk into the 3rd quarter against the skins??? no he barely played at all even though he is the starter. he is very injury prone so steven jackson played most of the night.

really i am more upset about bennett than mckinnie. bennetts first half was his best performance yet in the preseason.

maybe i am making too big a deal over this but i am really upset that both smith and bennett will be out maybe for the first month of the season.

Del Rio
09-02-2004, 03:20 PM
I think the coach had his reasons to play them in the third. And since we don't know those reasons it's near impossible to debate this subject.

The pre-season games are not about winning, scores, or stats. Even Tice said they don't scout and prpare game plans for the opponent until the last pre season game.

If it's not about the score, stats or what not then I assume it is about unity, confidence, and seeing what people are made of.

If running a team into the ground in the preseason gives you a sense of confidence then so be it.

Another major thing to look at is ........Who is going to start for sure? Who are the untouchables that if a rookie does play, he will have to gell with? You know the answer.

Keeping your starting line up in longer gives you a chance to rotate more people in that are still fighting for jobs and see how they perform with your moneymakers.....plain and simple.