PDA

View Full Version : 2 things I have never seen before !



StillPurple
09-21-2008, 10:55 PM
This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?

VikingsTw
09-21-2008, 11:06 PM
32 seconds isn't enough time to go 90 yards with no timeouts then get an onside kick and hit a field goal. Especailly considering our defense owned them all game after a few lucky plays that got them into scoring position. No need to fumble an exchange or even get someone hurt. No Issue here.

Brad Childress's clothing does not affect me at all, putting W's in the Winner column does. No Issue here.

jargomcfargo
09-21-2008, 11:07 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?


The kneel down thing is pretty easy to figure out if you think about the score at that point in time.
By the way, did it not work out?

DustinDupont
09-21-2008, 11:08 PM
yeah i was kinda pissed cuz i wanted peterson to score but i knew they where making the right call when they kneed it

Overlord
09-21-2008, 11:09 PM
As to the first issue, that was just ridiculous.
I'm sure that some people will claim that there was no chance for the Panthers to come back, but the fact of the matter is that with 0:32 left on the clock there are still scenarios that end with the Vikings losing the game.
Not likely scenarios, but a chance none the less.

The correct calls, in my opinion, would be to either kneel it on third or make sure your running back knows not to go into the endzone.
Then on fourth down you run the ball up the middle with the fullback and see what happens.
You keep the halfback watching as a safety in case of a fumble, but it is nearly impossible for a fumble near the line to be returned anyway.

As to the second issue, I'm sure that there were numerous Reebok logos, and possibly a small Vikings logo as well.
Also, at one time and still in San Francisco, it was standard issue to wear a suit and tie as opposed to a sponsor's gear.

vikesfan713
09-21-2008, 11:11 PM
no it was mis managed time.
what if we were only up a fg

hav0x
09-21-2008, 11:14 PM
"vikesfan713" wrote:


no it was mis managed time.
what if we were only up a fg
We weren't, which is why we did it that way. What if's don't matter in the NFL.

StillPurple
09-21-2008, 11:16 PM
Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.

DustinDupont
09-21-2008, 11:16 PM
"vikesfan713" wrote:


no it was mis managed time.
what if we were only up a fg


if we where only up a fg we wouldnt have kneed it...

ragz
09-21-2008, 11:17 PM
the qb positions play was not much different from the first 2 games.
difference today, the defense made a play and kept a team down for pretty much the whole game.
berrian caught a bomb on not a great throw.
a wr actually adjusted and made a nice catch, amazing how that works eh?
shank didnt drop his td.
we threw the ball twice as much as we have all year in the first half and still only had 3 offensive points to show for it.
and only 13 for the game.
the thing you have to like is the way they mixed it up more, even with getting chester some more carries.
you can see how their different styles, taylor, petersen, really do add something.
plus alot more playaction and not predictable run downs, pass downs.
plus we had the lead in the 4th quarter and that offensive line took over and we pretty much ran the ball right down there throat for the game clinching field goal.
the offensive line really has been pretty stellar besides the green bay game.
i mean, i have not heard boo outta ryan cook and i'm pretty sure thats a good thing.
carolina was definitely sloopy, but hopefully that had to do with our play and crowd noise.
either way huge win and it doesnt get easier, now we gotta go to 3-0 titans.
if we are gonna win games the way it seems we want to, the defense has to play like it did today, and berrian and others gotta make a play here or there.
today we did, weeks one and 2 we didn't.
lets keep it going.

erik5032
09-21-2008, 11:18 PM
"vikesfan713" wrote:


no it was mis managed time.
what if we were only up a fg


Stillpurple would not have mentioned it because they would have kicked a fieldgoal or scored a TD.... We Won, we did a lot of good things and had some screw ups (but nothing that costed us the game)....

StillPurple
09-21-2008, 11:26 PM
I agree that we won and it is all good. The only reason I am mentioning it is, I don't want us to do this again. I think we need to think about this. Taking a knee and then leaving 32 seconds on the clock for a team that has a history of coming from behind in dramatic fashion in the final seconds is not cool.

Re Chilly's wardrobe, I am willing to let that slide. I respect the coach. At least he is fit (did you see Phili Coach Reid today ? God, that dude is obese !! Childress is fit and I respect that). I just would like to see him wear purple next time.

ThorSPL
09-21-2008, 11:28 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?


We were up by 2 possessions.... thats why it wasn't such a bad thign to do.

hailtocarter
09-21-2008, 11:30 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Holy shit do you guys realize what the situation was??
The panthers needed TWO scores.
I dare you to find someone who has won a game down TWO scores with 30 seconds to go.
Seriously, it was a great win, defense gave up nothing in the second half.
The thing I loved was that we didn't play the prevent defense that we usually do at the end of the game.
Instead, we whooped the shit outta them and made sure we got a win...and I gotta say, Gus definitely proved me wrong.

Overlord
09-21-2008, 11:32 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I agree that we won and it is all good. The only reason I am mentioning it is, I don't want us to do this again. I think we need to think about this. Taking a knee and then leaving 32 seconds on the clock for a team that has a history of coming from behind in dramatic fashion in the final seconds is not cool.
...


Again, I agree with your thinking almost entirely.
I wouldn't be so worried just because they came back the previous couple of weeks, but that doesn't change the calls you need to make.

Coaches make the same calls over and over again.
If the coach makes the wrong call he hurts his teams chances of winning.
If the coach makes the same wrong call consistently, then eventually that wrong call will translate into losses.

The fact that in this case the opponent didn't take advantage of the teams mistakes does not mean that mistakes did not happen.

V4L
09-21-2008, 11:36 PM
They needed 2 scores homie

Overlord
09-21-2008, 11:42 PM
"hailtocarter" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Holy shit do you guys realize what the situation was??
The panthers needed TWO scores.
I dare you to find someone who has won a game down TWO scores with 30 seconds to go.
Seriously, it was a great win, defense gave up nothing in the second half.
The thing I loved was that we didn't play the prevent defense that we usually do at the end of the game.
Instead, we whooped the shit outta them and made sure we got a win...and I gotta say, Gus definitely proved me wrong.


Okay.
The Cowboys last year against the Bills.
They were down 14-24 with less than thirty seconds remaining and won in regulation.
There are many other examples, but I'm not going to find them all.


The point is that as improbable as it may be, it was still possible for the Panthers to come back and win.
Given that, it is the job of the coaches to call the game in a way that maximizes the team's chances to win.
Even if that only means going from a 99% chance of winning to a 99.9% chance.

Oh, and this isn't unique to football.
Strange things happen in every sport:

PATkYHF1dEU

If you play enough games, sooner or later you will see everything.

hailtocarter
09-21-2008, 11:46 PM
"vikesfan713" wrote:


no it was mis managed time.
what if we were only up a fg


What if we were up 5 touchdowns???
That is a stupid question.
We were NOT only up by a fg so the situation dictated the actions.
If we were only up a fg then you would have seen something different...duh.

vikesfan713
09-21-2008, 11:49 PM
still is time mis management

V4L
09-21-2008, 11:50 PM
this thread sucks

hailtocarter
09-21-2008, 11:55 PM
"V4L" wrote:


this thread sucks


agreed

thevikingfan
09-22-2008, 12:03 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


that is stupid they had no timeouts meaning it didnt matter if we ran it or kneeled it we took the maximum amount of time off the clock

Overlord
09-22-2008, 12:09 AM
"thevikingfan" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


that is stupid they had no timeouts meaning it didnt matter if we ran it or kneeled it we took the maximum amount of time off the clock


We did take very close to the maximum amount of time off the clock considering we were not trying to get a first down, but we could have:
-gotten a first down and run out the clock
-scored a touchdown on 4th down and made a comeback even more improbable
-gotten more yardage, making it slightly harder for Carolina to score

Again, it's not a huge deal in the sense that the chance of a comeback was never significant.
But does anyone here believe that the play call on 4th down increased the Vikings chances of winning compared to a run up the middle?

gagarr
09-22-2008, 12:18 AM
IMO, every play could result in an injury.

The chance of the Panthers scoring twice in 32 seconds is far less than someone getting injured.

The Vikes offense also had played alot given the TOP.
So give them a well deserved break.

thevikingfan
09-22-2008, 12:22 AM
did you guys really expect the panthers to come back from 10 down in 34 seconds starting at our 10?after already getting sacked 5 times and being in prevent coverage?

Overlord
09-22-2008, 12:26 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


IMO, every play could result in an injury.

The chance of the Panthers scoring twice in 32 seconds is far less than someone getting injured.

The Vikes offense also had played alot given the TOP.
So give them a well deserved break.


I hadn't considered the injury factor.

But given that we had a chance to get a first down, doesn't that just shift the injury risk to the defense?


Certainly a good argument there though, since the chances of getting a first down on fourth and long with a run up the middle is minimal.

SKOL
09-22-2008, 12:43 AM
"thevikingfan" wrote:


did you guys really expect the panthers to come back from 10 down in 34 seconds starting at our 10?after already getting sacked 5 times and being in prevent coverage?


No...


We've been through a lot as Vikings fans though, particularly the last few years, so anything is possible.
;D

El Vikingo
09-22-2008, 05:47 AM
With a good play and a W ,starting this thread is
nonsesnse.

Zeus
09-22-2008, 06:30 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?


You seem to be the type who would bitch if PPO got you laid.

=Z=

Bretto007
09-22-2008, 07:18 AM
I agree with taking a knee, why risk a handoff?
Also if the vikings make a FG there then we have to kick it off to them.
Our special teams have been playing poorly lately so why not have them try to march the length of the field from their own 10 with no timeouts instead of giving them a chance to return a kickoff for a touchdown or better field position.

I have to admit, I am always nervous until the game is actually over.
Steve Smith is a gamebreaker who is always a danger to take one to the house.

PurplePeopleEaters
09-22-2008, 07:28 AM
Our defense had just stopped them on 4th down. There was no reason to believe, during a two score game, that we couldn't stop them again. I agree with the call- It forced them inside their own ten rather than kicking it off to them, risking a good return. I think either way it didn't matter that much though. It was a 10 point game with 30 secs. left. I know many will say anything can happen in that amount of time, but with how our defense was playing, there was no reason to think anything could.

ejmat
09-22-2008, 07:57 AM
No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.

singersp
09-22-2008, 08:07 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?

singersp
09-22-2008, 08:08 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?


New rope I reckon.

Purple Floyd
09-22-2008, 08:17 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?


You seem to be the type who would bitch if PPO got you laid.

=Z=


Here you go:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/denjahn/pneumatic_hand.jpg

ejmat
09-22-2008, 08:33 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?


I disagree.
You saw how quickly the Vikings scored 10 points in the 1st half.
A TD was a result of a fumble.
Then you have 30 seconds to kick an on-side kick and move the ball 20 yards for a FG attempt.
This way if they don't fumble it makes it more difficult to move it quickly.
Sorry but I don't agree with your thought on this one my good friend.

NodakPaul
09-22-2008, 08:35 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...

ejmat
09-22-2008, 09:13 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...


Let me refer back to how the Vikings scored their first TD.
It was a fumble recovery that changed the momentum of the game.
It is much easier and quicker to score a TD on a fumble recovery than to have to go 80 yards down the field.
That is why they took the knee and it was the correct decision.
You don't play for stats as was eluded to in the beginning of the thread to where someone stated they wanted to see AP score.
We all want to see him score but in that circumstance taking a knee was the right decision.

Think back to last year when Westbrook slid on the 1 yard line even though he had an easy TD.
Why do you think he did that?

NodakPaul
09-22-2008, 09:16 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...


Let me refer back to how the Vikings scored their first TD.
It was a fumble recovery that changed the momentum of the game.
It is much easier and quicker to score a TD on a fumble recovery than to have to go 80 yards down the field.
That is why they took the knee and it was the correct decision.
You don't play for stats as was eluded to in the beginning of the thread to where someone stated they wanted to see AP score.
We all want to see him score but in that circumstance taking a knee was the right decision.

Think back to last year when Westbrook slid on the 1 yard line even though he had an easy TD.
Why do you think he did that?


I know.
I was advocating that taking a knee was a GOOD move, because even though it meant giving the ball back to Carolina, they would have to score 10 points in 32 seconds in order to tie.

Webby
09-22-2008, 09:17 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?


New rope I reckon.


I spit dr pepper out of my nose.
LMAO.

Webby
09-22-2008, 09:20 AM
"ragz" wrote:


the qb positions play was not much different from the first 2 games.
difference today, the defense made a play and kept a team down for pretty much the whole game.
berrian caught a bomb on not a great throw.
a wr actually adjusted and made a nice catch, amazing how that works eh?

shank didnt drop his td.
we threw the ball twice as much as we have all year in the first half and still only had 3 offensive points to show for it.
and only 13 for the game.
the thing you have to like is the way they mixed it up more, even with getting chester some more carries.
you can see how their different styles, taylor, petersen, really do add something.
plus alot more playaction and not predictable run downs, pass downs.
plus we had the lead in the 4th quarter and that offensive line took over and we pretty much ran the ball right down there throat for the game clinching field goal.
the offensive line really has been pretty stellar besides the green bay game.
i mean, i have not heard boo outta ryan cook and i'm pretty sure thats a good thing.
carolina was definitely sloopy, but hopefully that had to do with our play and crowd noise.
either way huge win and it doesnt get easier, now we gotta go to 3-0 titans.
if we are gonna win games the way it seems we want to, the defense has to play like it did today, and berrian and others gotta make a play here or there.
today we did, weeks one and 2 we didn't.
lets keep it going.



Oh, and the great ignore is that we also scored another TD called back on a stupid holding call.
And that bomb was perfect.
I will take the commentary of professionals like Morris who said that was beautifully placed.
Lets face it, that was the best O football in the second half I have seen in awhile from Purple.

jmcdon00
09-22-2008, 09:28 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...


Let me refer back to how the Vikings scored their first TD.
It was a fumble recovery that changed the momentum of the game.
It is much easier and quicker to score a TD on a fumble recovery than to have to go 80 yards down the field.
That is why they took the knee and it was the correct decision.
You don't play for stats as was eluded to in the beginning of the thread to where someone stated they wanted to see AP score.
We all want to see him score but in that circumstance taking a knee was the right decision.

Think back to last year when Westbrook slid on the 1 yard line even though he had an easy TD.
Why do you think he did that?


I know.
I was advocating that taking a knee was a GOOD move, because even though it meant giving the ball back to Carolina, they would have to score 10 points in 32 seconds in order to tie.

Right but why not kick the field goal, and make them score 13 points in 28 seconds.

ejmat
09-22-2008, 11:13 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...


Let me refer back to how the Vikings scored their first TD.
It was a fumble recovery that changed the momentum of the game.
It is much easier and quicker to score a TD on a fumble recovery than to have to go 80 yards down the field.
That is why they took the knee and it was the correct decision.
You don't play for stats as was eluded to in the beginning of the thread to where someone stated they wanted to see AP score.
We all want to see him score but in that circumstance taking a knee was the right decision.

Think back to last year when Westbrook slid on the 1 yard line even though he had an easy TD.
Why do you think he did that?


I know.
I was advocating that taking a knee was a GOOD move, because even though it meant giving the ball back to Carolina, they would have to score 10 points in 32 seconds in order to tie.

Right but why not kick the field goal, and make them score 13 points in 28 seconds.


I wouldn't have minded kicking a FG either.
I thought about that.
However, then there would have been all those assclowns saying they rubbed it in thier face.
Not that I really care what others think about the Vikings.
The other bad thing that can happen is it gets blocked and it's returned for a TD.
Again, the safest play was the knee.
It worked out great.
I am not sure why it's an issue here.

NodakPaul
09-22-2008, 11:15 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...


Let me refer back to how the Vikings scored their first TD.
It was a fumble recovery that changed the momentum of the game.
It is much easier and quicker to score a TD on a fumble recovery than to have to go 80 yards down the field.
That is why they took the knee and it was the correct decision.
You don't play for stats as was eluded to in the beginning of the thread to where someone stated they wanted to see AP score.
We all want to see him score but in that circumstance taking a knee was the right decision.

Think back to last year when Westbrook slid on the 1 yard line even though he had an easy TD.
Why do you think he did that?


I know.
I was advocating that taking a knee was a GOOD move, because even though it meant giving the ball back to Carolina, they would have to score 10 points in 32 seconds in order to tie.

Right but why not kick the field goal, and make them score 13 points in 28 seconds.


I wouldn't have minded kicking a FG either.
I thought about that.
However, then there would have been all those assclowns saying they rubbed it in thier face.
Not that I really care what others think about the Vikings.
The other bad thing that can happen is it gets blocked and it's returned for a TD.
Again, the safest play was the knee.
It worked out great.
I am not sure why it's an issue here.


We have had blocked FGs returned for TDs.
Hell, we've had missed FGs returned 109 yards for a TD... ;)

ejmat is exactly right.
I was confused as to why we took a knee too, but it was absolutely the safest play in this situation.
It was a good coaching decision.

ejmat
09-22-2008, 11:54 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:






Particularly the fact that the Panthers came back in their previous two games, winning in the final minute. I really can't believe what we did. We were in the red zone and instead of running out the clock with a running play, we give the ball back to a team that had come from behind in the final minute of their previous games. It is really amazing. And they had Steve Smith on the field. I can't understand it.


Exactly how would they have gotten 10 points in 32 seconds?
Steve Smith cannot make TDs worth more than 8 points...

I would have run for a first, but taking a knee in no way put the game in jeopardy, so I don't understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch...


Let me refer back to how the Vikings scored their first TD.
It was a fumble recovery that changed the momentum of the game.
It is much easier and quicker to score a TD on a fumble recovery than to have to go 80 yards down the field.
That is why they took the knee and it was the correct decision.
You don't play for stats as was eluded to in the beginning of the thread to where someone stated they wanted to see AP score.
We all want to see him score but in that circumstance taking a knee was the right decision.

Think back to last year when Westbrook slid on the 1 yard line even though he had an easy TD.
Why do you think he did that?


I know.
I was advocating that taking a knee was a GOOD move, because even though it meant giving the ball back to Carolina, they would have to score 10 points in 32 seconds in order to tie.

Right but why not kick the field goal, and make them score 13 points in 28 seconds.


I wouldn't have minded kicking a FG either.
I thought about that.
However, then there would have been all those assclowns saying they rubbed it in thier face.
Not that I really care what others think about the Vikings.
The other bad thing that can happen is it gets blocked and it's returned for a TD.
Again, the safest play was the knee.
It worked out great.
I am not sure why it's an issue here.


We have had blocked FGs returned for TDs.
Hell, we've had missed FGs returned 109 yards for a TD... ;)

ejmat is exactly right.
I was confused as to why we took a knee too, but it was absolutely the safest play in this situation.
It was a good coaching decision.


Not to mention the blocked FG last year against Dallas returned for a TD.
There was no reason to take any unecessary chances.
The game was won at that point as long as there were no screw ups.
The knee was safe and secured the W.
Excellent decision!

BleedinPandG
09-22-2008, 12:01 PM
"vikesfan713" wrote:


still is time mis management


You guys have to think of probability.
If we kick the field goal we have to kick off.
Who do you trust more, our D to stop the Panthers O, an O they've shut out the entire 2nd half, from going 90 yards... or our ST's from stopping a kick return for a TD, a ST's that's already given up 2 big returns in the game?

Kicking the FG would've left it a 2 score game, Chilly put the faith in his D over his STs.
That's not rocket science given the play of both yesterday.
Amazing what people will come up with when they don't like someone.

Purple Floyd
09-22-2008, 12:06 PM
Not that it was an issue here, but didn't we come back and beat the Giants in the playoffs back about 1992 where we scored about 10 points in the final 1 minute or so to win?

NodakPaul
09-22-2008, 12:20 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Not that it was an issue here, but didn't we come back and beat the Giants in the playoffs back about 1992 where we scored about 10 points in the final 1 minute or so to win?



It was 1997, and the wild card game.
We were down by 9 with 1:09 left on the clock and were facing 4th and short from around the 30..
We kicked a FG, then recovered the onside kick, and scored a subsequent TD to win the game.

It is a little misleading though.
We started our FG drive with over 2 minutes to play, and kicked the FG with 1:09 left.
So yeah, we scored 10 points in just over a minute, but the total drive took longer.

I remember the people I was watching with go nuts when Denny choose to kick the FG instead of going for it on 4th and short.
But in the end it worked out correctly...

Zeus
09-22-2008, 12:21 PM
"Webby" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


the qb positions play was not much different from the first 2 games.
difference today, the defense made a play and kept a team down for pretty much the whole game.
berrian caught a bomb on not a great throw.
a wr actually adjusted and made a nice catch, amazing how that works eh?

shank didnt drop his td.
we threw the ball twice as much as we have all year in the first half and still only had 3 offensive points to show for it.
and only 13 for the game.
the thing you have to like is the way they mixed it up more, even with getting chester some more carries.
you can see how their different styles, taylor, petersen, really do add something.
plus alot more playaction and not predictable run downs, pass downs.
plus we had the lead in the 4th quarter and that offensive line took over and we pretty much ran the ball right down there throat for the game clinching field goal.
the offensive line really has been pretty stellar besides the green bay game.
i mean, i have not heard boo outta ryan cook and i'm pretty sure thats a good thing.
carolina was definitely sloopy, but hopefully that had to do with our play and crowd noise.
either way huge win and it doesnt get easier, now we gotta go to 3-0 titans.
if we are gonna win games the way it seems we want to, the defense has to play like it did today, and berrian and others gotta make a play here or there.
today we did, weeks one and 2 we didn't.
lets keep it going.



Oh, and the great ignore is that we also scored another TD called back on a stupid holding call.

And that bomb was perfect.
I will take the commentary of professionals like Morris who said that was beautifully placed.

Lets face it, that was the best O football in the second half I have seen in awhile from Purple.


Are you saying the holding call was stupid or that it was stupid of Birk to tackle the guy like he did?

=Z=

ejmat
09-22-2008, 12:23 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Not that it was an issue here, but didn't we come back and beat the Giants in the playoffs back about 1992 where we scored about 10 points in the final 1 minute or so to win?



Actually that was the late 90s but yes we did.
The fact is how many times does that happen?
Not a whole lot.
In that situation you want to play it safe.
There is no reason to take a chance.
This was the correct decision.

Purple Floyd
09-22-2008, 12:23 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Not that it was an issue here, but didn't we come back and beat the Giants in the playoffs back about 1992 where we scored about 10 points in the final 1 minute or so to win?



It was 1997, and the wild card game.
We were down by 9 with 1:09 left on the clock and were facing 4th and short from around the 30..
We kicked a FG, then recovered the onside kick, and scored a subsequent TD to win the game.

It is a little misleading though.
We started our FG drive with over 2 minutes to play, and kicked the FG with 1:09 left.
So yeah, we scored 10 points in just over a minute, but the total drive took longer.

I remember the people I was watching with go nuts when Denny choose to kick the FG instead of going for it on 4th and short.
But in the end it worked out correctly...


And of course that type of thing happens every day

Zeus
09-22-2008, 12:50 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Not that it was an issue here, but didn't we come back and beat the Giants in the playoffs back about 1992 where we scored about 10 points in the final 1 minute or so to win?



It was 1997, and the wild card game.
We were down by 9 with 1:09 left on the clock and were facing 4th and short from around the 30..
We kicked a FG, then recovered the onside kick, and scored a subsequent TD to win the game.

It is a little misleading though.
We started our FG drive with over 2 minutes to play, and kicked the FG with 1:09 left.
So yeah, we scored 10 points in just over a minute, but the total drive took longer.

I remember the people I was watching with go nuts when Denny choose to kick the FG instead of going for it on 4th and short.
But in the end it worked out correctly...


And of course that type of thing happens every day


Maybe not - but do you want the Vikings to kick off to Steve Smith (absolutely positive that Fox would have put him back there) with the way they were covering kicks yesterday?

=Z=

ejmat
09-22-2008, 12:59 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Not that it was an issue here, but didn't we come back and beat the Giants in the playoffs back about 1992 where we scored about 10 points in the final 1 minute or so to win?



It was 1997, and the wild card game.
We were down by 9 with 1:09 left on the clock and were facing 4th and short from around the 30..
We kicked a FG, then recovered the onside kick, and scored a subsequent TD to win the game.

It is a little misleading though.
We started our FG drive with over 2 minutes to play, and kicked the FG with 1:09 left.
So yeah, we scored 10 points in just over a minute, but the total drive took longer.

I remember the people I was watching with go nuts when Denny choose to kick the FG instead of going for it on 4th and short.
But in the end it worked out correctly...


And of course that type of thing happens every day


Maybe not - but do you want the Vikings to kick off to Steve Smith (absolutely positive that Fox would have put him back there) with the way they were covering kicks yesterday?

=Z=


Or Johnathan Stewart?
Our STs were not containing kick offs well yesterday.

StillPurple
09-23-2008, 12:00 AM
You guys are missing two big factors:

a. As I have pointed out, I have never seen any NFL coach ever take a knee and then leave time on the clock. Unheard of.

b. The Panthers had - in their first two games of this year - come back to win with less than one minute on the clock. Given that background, it is absurd for our coaching staff to take a knee and then leave 32 seconds on the clock.

To me, that says something about our coaches. I am sorry. I love this win, but I just have to mention this. If we win and then don't learn anything from what we did wrong, where are we ? We need to just say, ok, we made a mistake, now let's not do this again.

DustinDupont
09-23-2008, 12:09 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


You guys are missing two big factors:

a. As I have pointed out, I have never seen any NFL coach ever take a knee and then leave time on the clock. Unheard of.

b. The Panthers had - in their first two games of this year - come back to win with less than one minute on the clock. Given that background, it is absurd for our coaching staff to take a knee and then leave 32 seconds on the clock.

To me, that says something about our coaches. I am sorry. I love this win, but I just have to mention this. If we win and then don't learn anything from what we did wrong, where are we ? We need to just say, ok, we made a mistake, now let's not do this again.


ive seen it b4

midgensa
09-23-2008, 12:10 AM
There is absolutely no reason to kick a field goal in that instance. I do not have a real problem with them running the ball instead of taking a knee.
But all in all it was the right call. Give them the ball ... about 90 yards to go ... needing two scores with NO timeouts. They did it right.
And yes ... I have seen plenty of times when teams have given the ball back inside the ten or what not rather than kick a field goal, etc. Kicking off provides them a much better chance of scoring quickly.
Like I said ... running three running plays is not a horrible thing ... but the knee is not that bad.

hailtocarter
09-23-2008, 12:40 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


You guys are missing two big factors:

a. As I have pointed out, I have never seen any NFL coach ever take a knee and then leave time on the clock. Unheard of.

b. The Panthers had - in their first two games of this year - come back to win with less than one minute on the clock. Given that background, it is absurd for our coaching staff to take a knee and then leave 32 seconds on the clock.

To me, that says something about our coaches. I am sorry. I love this win, but I just have to mention this. If we win and then don't learn anything from what we did wrong, where are we ? We need to just say, ok, we made a mistake, now let's not do this again.


Enough with trying to compare this to the first 2 games the panthers won this year.
The circumstances were totally different:

In the first game, the panthers were down 24-19 (5 points, one score) with 2:27 to go with a timeout and the 2 minute warning.
They drove the field from their own 32 yard line and won with a td pass on the last play.
That took 2:27 and 11 plays.
Not really an unbelievable comeback considering their field position, time on the clock, and having 2 clock stoppages to work with.

In the second game, the panthers were down 17-13 (4 points, one score) and there was 6:46 to go on their winning drive.
The drive started near midfield and ended in a rushing td with about 4 minutes left.
Then, they held the bears for the win.

Now, in our game, the panthers were down 20-10 (10 points, TWO scores) and when their last drive started they had 33 seconds on the clock with no timeouts and no 2 minute warning to stop the clock.
It would be much more likely for them to score quickly from a fumble return or
blocked fg return for a td (and didnt the panthers block a fg earlier that didn't count because Fox called a timeout?).
Even if we make the fg, it's still a two score game and the way they were returning kicks (one was even called back) I don't think putting the ball in their hands in that position would be a very good idea.

All in all I think the coaches actually thought this out and made the perfect decision.

VikingsExpress
09-23-2008, 01:29 AM
Agreed good decision....and it actually happens more often then you would think to be honest.

TrojanVike28
09-23-2008, 02:15 AM
Listen, there was no way we were risking a turnover in that situation. We were not going to run up the score, or just kick a field goal and give them time to score with better field position. I don't know how you thought it was stupid? They had no timeouts left, with little time left. I thought it was the smart decesion. No need for glory points that we didn't need or what not. Just be glad we won. Onward to Tennessee. SKOL Vikings!

ejmat
09-23-2008, 06:55 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


You guys are missing two big factors:

a. As I have pointed out, I have never seen any NFL coach ever take a knee and then leave time on the clock. Unheard of.

b. The Panthers had - in their first two games of this year - come back to win with less than one minute on the clock. Given that background, it is absurd for our coaching staff to take a knee and then leave 32 seconds on the clock.

To me, that says something about our coaches. I am sorry. I love this win, but I just have to mention this. If we win and then don't learn anything from what we did wrong, where are we ? We need to just say, ok, we made a mistake, now let's not do this again.


You are not getting it here.
You must have missed the game last year where Westbrook took a knee on the 1 yard line even though he had a sure TD.
Sometimes you make decisions that are safe.
Did you see how quickly the Vikings scored when Winfield sacked Delhomme?
Why would you want to take that chance?
He took a knee.
It was the smart thing to do.
There were no mistakes made.
It is a lot more difficult to score twice with 30 seconds when starting from your own 20 yard line and no time outs than it is to block a FG or recover a fumble and take it the distance.
You go with the odds which is exactly what the Vikings did.
They made the right choice by taking the knee.
If you have never seen it before I'm sorry but it has happened several times in the past.
Maybe not that often but it does happen.

NodakPaul
09-23-2008, 07:37 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


You guys are missing two big factors:

a. As I have pointed out, I have never seen any NFL coach ever take a knee and then leave time on the clock. Unheard of.

b. The Panthers had - in their first two games of this year - come back to win with less than one minute on the clock. Given that background, it is absurd for our coaching staff to take a knee and then leave 32 seconds on the clock.

To me, that says something about our coaches. I am sorry. I love this win, but I just have to mention this. If we win and then don't learn anything from what we did wrong, where are we ? We need to just say, ok, we made a mistake, now let's not do this again.


It says something about our coaches to me as well.
It tells me that they know more about th egame of football than the average online fan.

Look, I was taken aback by the knee as well... I didn't understand it at the time.
But now after listening to reasoning and thinking about it, I realize that it was absolutely, 100% the right thing to do.
I am glad that Childress was smart enough to do it... because I would not have been.

You need to understand that sometimes you are wrong too, just like I was.
This is one of those times.

StillPurple
09-23-2008, 01:41 PM
You guys think teams can't go 90 yards fast and then kick an onside kick ???

Watch any of the games from last week, particularly the Chargers- Jets or Miami- Pats game. The modern NFL is soooo fast and all you need is to throw it deep and then get a flag (def. pass interference will do). You then spike the ball and you have maybe 20 seconds left. You then throw it in for 6. On the ensuing kickoff, you on-side it and recover it. Maybe return it all the way. Maybe get it with 3 seconds left. Then you throw downfield again (or kick the field goal). The game can't end on a defensive penalty...

Bills: scored 17 points in the last 8 minutes of their game last week.

I don't understand the logic, particularly if you look at how the Panthers won their two first games this year: on the final play, in very dramatic fashion, as
they say.

Good coaches put the game away. They don't give the ball back with 32 seconds, to a team that has a habit of coming back. The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.

josdin00
09-23-2008, 02:49 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


You guys think teams can't go 90 yards fast and then kick an onside kick ???

Watch any of the games from last week, particularly the Chargers- Jets or Miami- Pats game. The modern NFL is soooo fast and all you need is to throw it deep and then get a flag (def. pass interference will do). You then spike the ball and you have maybe 20 seconds left. You then throw it in for 6. On the ensuing kickoff, you on-side it and recover it. Maybe return it all the way. Maybe get it with 3 seconds left. Then you throw downfield again (or kick the field goal). The game can't end on a defensive penalty...

Bills: scored 17 points in the last 8 minutes of their game last week.

I don't understand the logic, particularly if you look at how the Panthers won their two first games this year: on the final play, in very dramatic fashion, as
they say.

Good coaches put the game away. They don't give the ball back with 32 seconds, to a team that has a habit of coming back. The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


Their week 1 game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drivechart?game_id=29539&displayPage=tab_drive_chart&season=2008&week=REG1&override=true) ended as time ran out, correct. But that drive took 2 minutes and 27 seconds, and only covered 68 yards.

WeekOff TeamStart TimeTime PossDrive Began# of PlaysNet YardsResult

1CAR02:272:27CAR 321168Touchdown



Their week 2 game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drivechart?game_id=29544&displayPage=tab_drive_chart&season=2008&week=REG2&override=true) had nothing to do with winning on the final play. Their go ahead score came on a 5 play drive that took 2:54 off the clock, and only went 55 yards.

WeekOff TeamStart TimeTime PossDrive Began# of PlaysNet YardsResult

2CAR06:462:54CAR 45555Touchdown
2CHI3:520:57CHI 293-4Punt
2CAR02:550:31CAR 2037Punt
2CHI02:240:32CHI 4149Downs
2CAR01:521:52503-3End of Game


There is nothing in either of those games that suggests that the Panthers could move the ball 90 yards, score a touchdown, kick an onside kick, recover the onside kick, move the ball another 25 yards, and kick a long field goal in 30 seconds with no timeouts.

ejmat
09-23-2008, 03:08 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


You guys think teams can't go 90 yards fast and then kick an onside kick ???

Watch any of the games from last week, particularly the Chargers- Jets or Miami- Pats game. The modern NFL is soooo fast and all you need is to throw it deep and then get a flag (def. pass interference will do). You then spike the ball and you have maybe 20 seconds left. You then throw it in for 6. On the ensuing kickoff, you on-side it and recover it. Maybe return it all the way. Maybe get it with 3 seconds left. Then you throw downfield again (or kick the field goal). The game can't end on a defensive penalty...

Bills: scored 17 points in the last 8 minutes of their game last week.

I don't understand the logic, particularly if you look at how the Panthers won their two first games this year: on the final play, in very dramatic fashion, as
they say.

Good coaches put the game away. They don't give the ball back with 32 seconds, to a team that has a habit of coming back. The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


None of us saif it couldn't happen.
I personally am saying it is much more difficult for any team to score 90 yards in 30 seconds and kick an on-side kick then to recover a fumble or a blocked kick.
IT WAS THE SAFE AND CORRECT CALL.
Did you see how the Vikings scored their 1st TD?
Take the legnth of time that took then take the legnth of time it took to score our 2nd TD.
Which was faster?

Zeus
09-23-2008, 03:10 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=

C Mac D
09-23-2008, 03:11 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.

josdin00
09-23-2008, 03:16 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.

C Mac D
09-23-2008, 03:20 PM
"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.


Well, perhaps... but I have seen many "Particular Situations" in which Childress has fumbled and we end up not making the playoffs.

I've had enough, and while some people may not mind sitting back and watch a team, loaded with talent, sink under the coaching of "Major Dad" himself, I do.

I'm just sick of it.

It's his third year.

We are starting Gus Ferrotte.

We're 1-2.

Nothing is going to change.

Bkfldviking
09-23-2008, 03:21 PM
"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.


You know josdin00 I don't think it's too wise to step between these two with anything resembling logic or common sense.
It only encourages them.

StillPurple
09-23-2008, 03:25 PM
"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head" (does he have that thing buffed ?).

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".

jargomcfargo
09-23-2008, 03:26 PM
"C" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.


Well, perhaps... but I have seen many "Particular Situations" in which Childress has fumbled and we end up not making the playoffs.

I've had enough, and while some people may not mind sitting back and watch a team, loaded with talent, sink under the coaching of "Major Dad" himself.

I'm just sick of it.

It's his third final year.

We are starting Gus Ferrotte.

We're 1-2.

Nothing is going to change.


edited for you!
;D

C Mac D
09-23-2008, 03:27 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.

josdin00
09-23-2008, 03:31 PM
"C" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.

=Z=


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.


Well, perhaps... but I have seen many "Particular Situations" in which Childress has fumbled and we end up not making the playoffs.

I've had enough, and while some people may not mind sitting back and watch a team, loaded with talent, sink under the coaching of "Major Dad" himself, I do.

I'm just sick of it.

It's his third year.

We are starting Gus Ferrotte.

We're 1-2.

Nothing is going to change.


I've seen a few situations where I think Childress dropped the ball, too. I don't think this was one of them. However, a passing grade in this situation does not imply a passing grade for his whole body of work, and that's what you seemed think we were saying.

Zeus
09-23-2008, 03:38 PM
"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.


Well, perhaps... but I have seen many "Particular Situations" in which Childress has fumbled and we end up not making the playoffs.

I've had enough, and while some people may not mind sitting back and watch a team, loaded with talent, sink under the coaching of "Major Dad" himself, I do.

I'm just sick of it.

It's his third year.

We are starting Gus Ferrotte.

We're 1-2.

Nothing is going to change.


I've seen a few situations where I think Childress dropped the ball, too. I don't think this was one of them. However, a passing grade in this situation does not imply a passing grade for his whole body of work, and that's what you seemed think we were saying.


Those willing to look beyond personal BIAS can evaluate situations on their own merit.

Against a defense that is kicking Panther ass all over the field, I'd MUCH rather have it on the field, down by 10, than have a kick-return unit that had been running up and down the sidelines all day on the field, down by 13.

=Z=

Overlord
09-23-2008, 03:46 PM
StillPurple,

I agree with your original sentiment as I've stated before, but I think you're off if you think that a field goal was the right call.
As Zeus and some others have stated, you're either giving the Panthers a chance for a block and return or a kick return, without increasing the number of scores necessary for a comeback.

I still believe though that running the ball, at least on fourth down, and trying to get preferably a first down or alternatively a touchdown would have been the best call.

NodakPaul
09-23-2008, 04:26 PM
"C" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

StillPurple
09-23-2008, 04:36 PM
Gee, do you think our punter could have kicked the ball out of bounds from "point blank" range, and left them on their own 3 ? Might that have worked, and is that not the sane and normal call on 4th down ?

Maybe I am missing something here, but leaving that time on the clock seems stupid to me.

Why is it "ridiculously over the top ?". I want to win. All my comments about him have been to his performace. Ok, and his shiny head.
::)

I guess if he proves me wrong and gets a Ring, I could send him a fruit basket, with a little apology note. Would that do it for ya ?

jmcdon00
09-23-2008, 04:48 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.

V4L
09-23-2008, 04:51 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"C" wrote:






The more I see good coaches like Shanahan (who went for 2 two weeks ago, instead of taking the conservative route of tying the game), the more I realize, mediocre coaches do stuff like this.


And the more I read what you write, the more I realize that your blind hatred of all things Childress ruins any chance that you could have had to make a realistic analysis of this particular situation.


You're right... we'll give him 4 years now.


I really don't think that's what Zeus was trying to say, and you know it.


Well, perhaps... but I have seen many "Particular Situations" in which Childress has fumbled and we end up not making the playoffs.

I've had enough, and while some people may not mind sitting back and watch a team, loaded with talent, sink under the coaching of "Major Dad" himself, I do.

I'm just sick of it.

It's his third year.

We are starting Gus Ferrotte.

We're 1-2.

Nothing is going to change.


I've seen a few situations where I think Childress dropped the ball, too. I don't think this was one of them. However, a passing grade in this situation does not imply a passing grade for his whole body of work, and that's what you seemed think we were saying.


Those willing to look beyond personal BIAS can evaluate situations on their own merit.

Against a defense that is kicking Panther jiggly butt all over the field, I'd MUCH rather have it on the field, down by 10, than have a kick-return unit that had been running up and down the sidelines all day on the field, down by 13.

=Z=




Exactly what I was trying to get at my man

Thanks!!

Perfect logic right there

SKOL
09-23-2008, 04:54 PM
At first my buddies and I were irritated at the decision.
But then logic set in and we reasoned that at least we're leaving it in our defenses hands.
If we tried to kick a field goal and it's blocked and returned for a TD, our defense would not touch the field again until we're up by just three points, and then anything can happen.
The way it ended the Panthers would have to score twice with no timeouts, against a defense that they were doing nothing against.
This was a better situation, and I was happy with the win.

V4L
09-23-2008, 04:56 PM
"SKOL" wrote:


At first my buddies and I were irritated at the decision.
But then logic set in and we reasoned that at least we're leaving it in our defenses hands.
If we tried to kick a field goal and it's blocked and returned for a TD, our defense would not touch the field again until we're up by just three points, and then anything can happen.
The way it ended the Panthers would have to score twice with no timeouts, against a defense that they were doing nothing against.
This was a better situation, and I was happy with the win.






Another excellent point

If it gets blocked and returned for a TD (Gamble has had some luck in the past getting TD's and turnovers) then we are only up by 3 and who knows if Delhomme could pull of one of his late game TD throws like he has been

Mikecarter81
09-23-2008, 04:58 PM
"V4L" wrote:


this thread sucks


Best post of the entire thread

Mike

V4L
09-23-2008, 05:01 PM
"Mikecarter81" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


this thread sucks


Best post of the entire thread

Mike




Thank you my man

It took much thought
:)

cogitans
09-23-2008, 05:01 PM
I haven't seen this before:

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/ballet.jpg

I've never seen ballet either.

Bkfldviking
09-23-2008, 05:10 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.


I agree.
Even well known names had rough starts:

Tom Landry

Coaching ResultsGlossary · CSV · PRE
Year Age Tm Lg G W L T W-L% G plyf W plyf L plyf W-L% Rank Notes
1960 36 Dallas Cowboys NFL 12 0 11 1 .000

7

1961 37 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 9 1 .308

6

1962 38 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385

5

1963 39 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 10 0 .286

5

1964 40 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385

5

1965 41 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 7 7 0 .500

2

1966 42 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 3 1 .769 1 0 1 .000 1

1967 43 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 9 5 0 .643 2 1 1 .500 1

1968 44 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 1 0 1 .000 1

1969 45 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 2 1 .846 1 0 1 .000 1

1970 46 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1971 47 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1972 48 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 2

1973 49 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 1

1974 50 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 8 6 0 .571

3

1975 51 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 2 NFC Champions

1976 52 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 1 0 1 .000 1

1977 53 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1978 54 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1979 55 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 11 5 0 .688 1 0 1 .000 1

1980 56 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1

1981 57 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 2 1 1 .500 1

1982 58 Dallas Cowboys NFL 9 6 3 0 .667 3 2 1 .667 2

1983 59 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 1 0 1 .000 2

1984 60 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 9 7 0 .563

2

1985 61 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 10 6 0 .625 1 0 1 .000 1

1986 62 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 7 9 0 .438

3

1987 63 Dallas Cowboys NFL 15 7 8 0 .467

2

1988 64 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 3 13 0 .188

5

29 yrs

418 250 162 6 .607 36 20 16 .556 2.3 Avg Finish


It took him five years to get anything going.

StillPurple
09-23-2008, 05:37 PM
When in doubt, just cut and paste a bunch of stats.

Just kidding, bro. That is actually kind of interesting.
;D

singersp
09-23-2008, 06:19 PM
"cogitans" wrote:


I haven't seen this before:

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/ballet.jpg

I've never seen ballet either.


Is that Toniu Fonoti?

ejmat
09-23-2008, 06:22 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"Mikecarter81" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


this thread sucks


Best post of the entire thread

Mike




Thank you my man

It took much thought
:)


I agree.
I'[m dumbfounded that this thread is still going and people are still debating over this topic.
Whether you love Chilly hate him or are indifferent, he made the right call in this scenerio.

singersp
09-23-2008, 06:32 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?


I disagree.
You saw how quickly the Vikings scored 10 points in the 1st half.
A TD was a result of a fumble.
Then you have 30 seconds to kick an on-side kick and move the ball 20 yards for a FG attempt.
This way if they don't fumble it makes it more difficult to move it quickly.
Sorry but I don't agree with your thought on this one my good friend.


No you don't. There were 32 seconds left on the clock when we took the knee. If we run a play there & fumble, who on the Panthers squad is fast enough to run that distance to score a TD in less than 2 seconds?

ultravikingfan
09-23-2008, 07:25 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Gee, do you think our punter could have kicked the ball out of bounds from "point blank" range, and left them on their own 3 ? Might that have worked, and is that not the sane and normal call on 4th down ?

Maybe I am missing something here, but leaving that time on the clock seems stupid to me.

Why is it "ridiculously over the top ?". I want to win. All my comments about him have been to his performace. Ok, and his shiny head.
::)

I guess if he proves me wrong and gets a Ring, I could send him a fruit basket, with a little apology note. Would that do it for ya ?


And we did win.
http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/angry/059.gif

jargomcfargo
09-23-2008, 09:22 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.


I have also said that we need to give Chilly time to install his players and staff.
But recently I have been a bit upset by the benching of TJ.
No, not because I'm a big TJ crotch sniffer; I'm not.
But because I see it as a bad decision by Childress.
And this has led me to view this whole thing in a different light.

Having the same coaching staff is important for consistancy when you are winning. Coaches are retained for years when they perform.

I now feel there is little risk in hiring a coach who has had years of head coaching experience with success.
Starting over with an experienced coach is far less risky than sticking with a coach who has accomplished next to nothing.The experienced coach knows how to win. He also knows how to use the talent he has.

If Childress can't win, after all that the owner has done to help the cause; it's time for a change.
A change to a coach with experience and a track record would not set us back three years.

But to blindly stick with an inexperienced underachiever might.

Childress, your time is now.

Perform or perish.

BadlandsVikings
09-23-2008, 09:30 PM
strippers and a the Vikings in a super bowl

Zeus
09-23-2008, 10:05 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


I haven't seen this before:

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/ballet.jpg

I've never seen ballet either.


Is that Toniu Fonoti?


Al Noga.

=Z=

Purple Floyd
09-23-2008, 10:21 PM
"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.


I agree.
Even well known names had rough starts:

Tom Landry

Coaching ResultsGlossary · CSV · PRE
Year Age Tm Lg G W L T W-L% G plyf W plyf L plyf W-L% Rank Notes
1960 36 Dallas Cowboys NFL 12 0 11 1 .000


7

1961 37 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 9 1 .308


6

1962 38 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385


5

1963 39 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 10 0 .286


5

1964 40 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385


5

1965 41 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 7 7 0 .500


2

1966 42 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 3 1 .769 1 0 1 .000 1

1967 43 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 9 5 0 .643 2 1 1 .500 1

1968 44 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 1 0 1 .000 1

1969 45 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 2 1 .846 1 0 1 .000 1

1970 46 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1971 47 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1972 48 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 2

1973 49 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 1

1974 50 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 8 6 0 .571


3

1975 51 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 2 NFC Champions

1976 52 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 1 0 1 .000 1

1977 53 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1978 54 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1979 55 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 11 5 0 .688 1 0 1 .000 1

1980 56 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1

1981 57 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 2 1 1 .500 1

1982 58 Dallas Cowboys NFL 9 6 3 0 .667 3 2 1 .667 2

1983 59 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 1 0 1 .000 2

1984 60 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 9 7 0 .563


2

1985 61 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 10 6 0 .625 1 0 1 .000 1

1986 62 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 7 9 0 .438


3

1987 63 Dallas Cowboys NFL 15 7 8 0 .467


2

1988 64 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 3 13 0 .188


5

29 yrs

418 250 162 6 .607 36 20 16 .556 2.3 Avg Finish


It took him five years to get anything going.



Oh come on, Dallas was an expansion franchise and that team was built from ground zero his first year. Childress took over a 9-7 squad that was established and the owner has been very aggressive this year in FA bringing in talent to bolster the team.

How aggressive were the cowboys in 1960-63 in bringing in FA talent to bolster the team? Oh yeah, there was no FA in the first 5 years of Landry. ;)

If you want to use the cowboys and the time it took coaches to win, at least look at the first 3 years of Jerry and Jimmy. That will at least be closer to apples- to apples. But the cowboys then had the worst talent in their history taking over a 3-13 team.


The first 5 years:

1-15
7-9
11-5
13-3 SB Champs
12-4 SB champs.



That is what you call progression and if Childress can do that then the debate would be over.

Zeus
09-23-2008, 10:22 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:




"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.


I agree.
Even well known names had rough starts:

Tom Landry

Coaching ResultsGlossary · CSV · PRE
Year Age Tm Lg G W L T W-L% G plyf W plyf L plyf W-L% Rank Notes
1960 36 Dallas Cowboys NFL 12 0 11 1 .000


7

1961 37 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 9 1 .308


6

1962 38 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385


5

1963 39 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 10 0 .286


5

1964 40 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385


5

1965 41 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 7 7 0 .500


2

1966 42 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 3 1 .769 1 0 1 .000 1

1967 43 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 9 5 0 .643 2 1 1 .500 1

1968 44 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 1 0 1 .000 1

1969 45 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 2 1 .846 1 0 1 .000 1

1970 46 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1971 47 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1972 48 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 2

1973 49 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 1

1974 50 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 8 6 0 .571


3

1975 51 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 2 NFC Champions

1976 52 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 1 0 1 .000 1

1977 53 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1978 54 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1979 55 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 11 5 0 .688 1 0 1 .000 1

1980 56 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1

1981 57 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 2 1 1 .500 1

1982 58 Dallas Cowboys NFL 9 6 3 0 .667 3 2 1 .667 2

1983 59 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 1 0 1 .000 2

1984 60 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 9 7 0 .563


2

1985 61 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 10 6 0 .625 1 0 1 .000 1

1986 62 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 7 9 0 .438


3

1987 63 Dallas Cowboys NFL 15 7 8 0 .467


2

1988 64 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 3 13 0 .188


5

29 yrs

418 250 162 6 .607 36 20 16 .556 2.3 Avg Finish


It took him five years to get anything going.



Oh come on, Dallas was an expansion franchise and that team was built from ground zero his first year. Childress took over a 9-7 squad that was established and the owner has been very aggressive this year in FA bringing in talent to bolster the team.

How aggressive were the cowboys in 1960-63 in bringing in FA talent to bolster the team? Oh yeah, there was no FA in the first 5 years of Landry. ;)

If you want to use the cowboys and the time it took coaches to win, at least look at the first 3 years of Jerry and Jimmy. That will at least be closer to apples- to apples. But the cowboys then had the worst talent in their history taking over a 3-13 team.


The first 5 years:

1-15
7-9
11-5
13-3 SB Champs
12-4 SB champs.



That is what you call progression and if Childress can do that then the debate would be over.



Which team is willing to trade us a bazillion draft picks for Herschel Walker?

=Z=

Purple Floyd
09-23-2008, 10:27 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:






"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.


I agree.
Even well known names had rough starts:

Tom Landry

Coaching ResultsGlossary · CSV · PRE
Year Age Tm Lg G W L T W-L% G plyf W plyf L plyf W-L% Rank Notes
1960 36 Dallas Cowboys NFL 12 0 11 1 .000


7

1961 37 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 9 1 .308


6

1962 38 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385


5

1963 39 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 4 10 0 .286


5

1964 40 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 5 8 1 .385


5

1965 41 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 7 7 0 .500


2

1966 42 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 3 1 .769 1 0 1 .000 1

1967 43 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 9 5 0 .643 2 1 1 .500 1

1968 44 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 1 0 1 .000 1

1969 45 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 2 1 .846 1 0 1 .000 1

1970 46 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1971 47 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1972 48 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 2

1973 49 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 2 1 1 .500 1

1974 50 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 8 6 0 .571


3

1975 51 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 10 4 0 .714 3 2 1 .667 2 NFC Champions

1976 52 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 11 3 0 .786 1 0 1 .000 1

1977 53 Dallas Cowboys NFL 14 12 2 0 .857 3 3 0 1.000 1 Super Bowl Champions

1978 54 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1 NFC Champions

1979 55 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 11 5 0 .688 1 0 1 .000 1

1980 56 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 3 2 1 .667 1

1981 57 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 2 1 1 .500 1

1982 58 Dallas Cowboys NFL 9 6 3 0 .667 3 2 1 .667 2

1983 59 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 12 4 0 .750 1 0 1 .000 2

1984 60 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 9 7 0 .563


2

1985 61 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 10 6 0 .625 1 0 1 .000 1

1986 62 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 7 9 0 .438


3

1987 63 Dallas Cowboys NFL 15 7 8 0 .467


2

1988 64 Dallas Cowboys NFL 16 3 13 0 .188


5

29 yrs

418 250 162 6 .607 36 20 16 .556 2.3 Avg Finish


It took him five years to get anything going.



Oh come on, Dallas was an expansion franchise and that team was built from ground zero his first year. Childress took over a 9-7 squad that was established and the owner has been very aggressive this year in FA bringing in talent to bolster the team.

How aggressive were the cowboys in 1960-63 in bringing in FA talent to bolster the team? Oh yeah, there was no FA in the first 5 years of Landry. ;)

If you want to use the cowboys and the time it took coaches to win, at least look at the first 3 years of Jerry and Jimmy. That will at least be closer to apples- to apples. But the cowboys then had the worst talent in their history taking over a 3-13 team.


The first 5 years:

1-15
7-9
11-5
13-3 SB Champs
12-4 SB champs.



That is what you call progression and if Childress can do that then the debate would be over.



Which team is willing to trade us a bazillion draft picks for Herschel Walker?

=Z=



Not sure.

If it were my job to find out I would probably try Millen before he is fired from Detroit or Al Davis before his mind totally goes away on him.

singersp
09-24-2008, 05:55 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


"Major Dad". LOL
;D

I prefer the nickname "Mr. Shiny Head".

I actually don't hate Chilly. I try not to let hate have any place in my life, and that of course includes my team. I am "disappointed" in him though.

"Baby steps. Baby steps....".


I never used the word hate either. It's Chi is all wrong for me.


LMAO.
For two people that never use the word "hate", you sure hate on Childress a LOT.
Barring a deep trip in the playoffs, I want him gone this year too.
But you two are ridiculously over the top.

As long as they improve I am okay with chilli coming back. If they fire him they are gonna have to start over in a lot of ways. Look at the teams that win superbowls. New England, Giants, Colts, Steelers all had coaches that had been with there team for a while. Teams that consistantly rotate coaches every 2-3 years usually don't fare well.

Gotta think long term, it's easy to let emotion take over and make decisions based on 1 bad game or 1 bad season but long term results are all that really matter.


I have also said that we need to give Chilly time to install his players and staff.
But recently I have been a bit upset by the benching of TJ.
No, not because I'm a big TJ crotch sniffer; I'm not.
But because I see it as a bad decision by Childress.
And this has led me to view this whole thing in a different light.

Having the same coaching staff is important for consistancy when you are winning. Coaches are retained for years when they perform.

I now feel there is little risk in hiring a coach who has had years of head coaching experience with success.
Starting over with an experienced coach is far less risky than sticking with a coach who has accomplished next to nothing.The experienced coach knows how to win. He also knows how to use the talent he has.

If Childress can't win, after all that the owner has done to help the cause; it's time for a change.
A change to a coach with experience and a track record would not set us back three years.

But to blindly stick with an inexperienced underachiever might.

Childress, your time is now.

Perform or perish.



You make a very valid point.

If Childress is unhappy with Jackson's performance & benches him in favor of someone else, why shouldn't Wilf feel the same way about Childress, who was given everything he wanted & has only delivered 6-10 & 8-8 seasons?

ejmat
09-24-2008, 06:19 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?


I disagree.
You saw how quickly the Vikings scored 10 points in the 1st half.
A TD was a result of a fumble.
Then you have 30 seconds to kick an on-side kick and move the ball 20 yards for a FG attempt.
This way if they don't fumble it makes it more difficult to move it quickly.
Sorry but I don't agree with your thought on this one my good friend.


No you don't. There were 32 seconds left on the clock when we took the knee. If we run a play there & fumble, who on the Panthers squad is fast enough to run that distance to score a TD in less than 2 seconds?


I think you are being a bit nit picky.
Whether it's 30 seconds or 20 seconds there is a better chance they are able to do it than there is to make them go 90 yards in 30 or 36 seconds, then kick an on-sides kick and score again.
Either way, risking a blocked kick or fumble recovery is not the better choice in this situation than just taking a knee and letting the defense (that had done well all game) stop them from going that distance.

If you can prove to me it is quicker to drive 90 yards down the field and score starting from scratch than it is to score on a fumble, INT, blocked kick than there is a debate.
If not than taking the knee was the correct decision.

singersp
09-24-2008, 06:49 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?


I disagree.
You saw how quickly the Vikings scored 10 points in the 1st half.
A TD was a result of a fumble.
Then you have 30 seconds to kick an on-side kick and move the ball 20 yards for a FG attempt.
This way if they don't fumble it makes it more difficult to move it quickly.
Sorry but I don't agree with your thought on this one my good friend.


No you don't. There were 32 seconds left on the clock when we took the knee. If we run a play there & fumble, who on the Panthers squad is fast enough to run that distance to score a TD in less than 2 seconds?


I think you are being a bit nit picky.
Whether it's 30 seconds or 20 seconds there is a better chance they are able to do it than there is to make them go 90 yards in 30 or 36 seconds, then kick an on-sides kick and score again.
Either way, risking a blocked kick or fumble recovery is not the better choice in this situation than just taking a knee and letting the defense (that had done well all game) stop them from going that distance.

If you can prove to me it is quicker to drive 90 yards down the field and score starting from scratch than it is to score on a fumble, INT, blocked kick than there is a debate.
If not than taking the knee was the correct decision.



I'm not stating that it was the wrong decision, just merely stating the fact that it would be damn difficult to score twice with no time outs & 32 seconds on the clock.

How much time do you think it would take from the time of a snap for a defender to block a FG, pick up the ball & run 90 yards? Then how much time would be eaten up on an onside kick play?

StillPurple
09-24-2008, 06:38 PM
But the point is, Tom Landry lived in a different era. They (the owners) let you lose for a couple years and build up a team. That era is long gone. Today, you either win or you are out.

That is why there is this chaos at the QB position around the NFL. You lose two games in a row and the QB who lost them now gets yanked. I am exagerrating a bit, but that is how it is. I don't think that there is a single QB in the NFL now who can't be pulled if he stinks.

The thing I never got on this Vikings team is the idea that Childress could have loads of time to "build", and also the idea that he "has" to go with Tarvaris, because he originally committed to him. Makes zero sense to me. You go with what works, and if you can't win, the team owner will find a coach who can.

Bkfldviking
09-24-2008, 06:41 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


But the point is, Tom Landry lived in a different era. They (the owners) let you lose for a couple years and build up a team. That era is long gone. Today, you either win or you are out.

That is why there is this chaos at the QB position around the NFL. You lose two games in a row and the QB who lost them now gets yanked. I am exagerrating a bit, but that is how it is. I don't think that there is a single QB in the NFL now who can't be pulled if he stinks.

The thing I never got on this Vikings team is the idea that Childress could have loads of time to "build", and also the idea that he "has" to go with Tarvaris, because he originally committed to him. Makes zero sense to me. You go with what works, and if you can't win, the team owner will find a coach who can.


Welcome to the microwave generation.
100 years ago people would wait a week for a stagecoach to take them where they wanted to go, today we get all pissed off if our hot dog isn't ready in 30 seconds.

Gift
09-24-2008, 09:04 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


This was a big win for us. 5 sacks, Frerotte stepping up on that drive. Really good stuff. Frerotte and Allen looked great today, as did most of the team. The defense was amazing.

Don't get me wrong, this was big, and I like it a lot.

The only thing is, I have two minor issues:

- We took a knee at the end of the game, but then left enough time on the clock for the Panthers to start a drive. I almost could not believe my eyes. I think I have never seen that ever in the NFL. Who does that ? Who leaves 32 seconds on the clock after taking a knee ??? Is this not a major indicator that there is something wrong with our coaching staff ??

- Childress: he had on this black and white jumpsuit. I strained my eyes to find anything purple or Viking on it. Again, I have never seen this: a head coach on Sunday not in "uniform", i.e. wearing clothing with ZERO reference to the team that writes his checks every week. What the hell is going on here ?

As said already, it was a safe bet to sit on the ball, the game was ours aslong as we don't give them a freebie.

I don't care what he is wearing, I do however, care about the ugly c**I love the word I used**k brush he wears.
SHAVE IT ALREADY!!


EDIT:

Nice filter
<--- Loves it

ejmat
09-25-2008, 02:13 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:




No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a shit?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?


I disagree.
You saw how quickly the Vikings scored 10 points in the 1st half.
A TD was a result of a fumble.
Then you have 30 seconds to kick an on-side kick and move the ball 20 yards for a FG attempt.
This way if they don't fumble it makes it more difficult to move it quickly.
Sorry but I don't agree with your thought on this one my good friend.


No you don't. There were 32 seconds left on the clock when we took the knee. If we run a play there & fumble, who on the Panthers squad is fast enough to run that distance to score a TD in less than 2 seconds?


I think you are being a bit nit picky.
Whether it's 30 seconds or 20 seconds there is a better chance they are able to do it than there is to make them go 90 yards in 30 or 36 seconds, then kick an on-sides kick and score again.
Either way, risking a blocked kick or fumble recovery is not the better choice in this situation than just taking a knee and letting the defense (that had done well all game) stop them from going that distance.

If you can prove to me it is quicker to drive 90 yards down the field and score starting from scratch than it is to score on a fumble, INT, blocked kick than there is a debate.
If not than taking the knee was the correct decision.



I'm not stating that it was the wrong decision, just merely stating the fact that it would be damn difficult to score twice with no time outs & 32 seconds on the clock.

How much time do you think it would take from the time of a snap for a defender to block a FG, pick up the ball & run 90 yards? Then how much time would be eaten up on an onside kick play?


Less time than what it would take to start from scratch from the 10 yard line.

DustinDupont
09-25-2008, 03:12 PM
how is this thread still around?

midgensa
09-25-2008, 04:08 PM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


how is this thread still around?


Because people cannot help but indulge SP's negative bullshit.

V4L
09-25-2008, 04:14 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:






No need to risk a fumble at that stage in the game.
They did the right thing by kneeling.
36 seconds is not enough time to drive 80 yards kick an on-side kick, get the ball back with no time outs.
Not even against the Vikings.
That is the time to be conservative.

Who cares what Brad Childress wears?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Mike Nolan wear a suit and I don't think he always has his teams colors on it most of the time.
I could be wrong but still who gives a pooh?
Let Wilf deal with Childress on his dress code if he chooses to do so.


If it is not enough time, then there is really no risk in fumbling the ball or tacking on 3 points, is there?


I disagree.
You saw how quickly the Vikings scored 10 points in the 1st half.
A TD was a result of a fumble.
Then you have 30 seconds to kick an on-side kick and move the ball 20 yards for a FG attempt.
This way if they don't fumble it makes it more difficult to move it quickly.
Sorry but I don't agree with your thought on this one my good friend.


No you don't. There were 32 seconds left on the clock when we took the knee. If we run a play there & fumble, who on the Panthers squad is fast enough to run that distance to score a TD in less than 2 seconds?


I think you are being a bit nit picky.
Whether it's 30 seconds or 20 seconds there is a better chance they are able to do it than there is to make them go 90 yards in 30 or 36 seconds, then kick an on-sides kick and score again.
Either way, risking a blocked kick or fumble recovery is not the better choice in this situation than just taking a knee and letting the defense (that had done well all game) stop them from going that distance.

If you can prove to me it is quicker to drive 90 yards down the field and score starting from scratch than it is to score on a fumble, INT, blocked kick than there is a debate.
If not than taking the knee was the correct decision.



I'm not stating that it was the wrong decision, just merely stating the fact that it would be gol 'darnit difficult to score twice with no time outs & 32 seconds on the clock.

How much time do you think it would take from the time of a snap for a defender to block a FG, pick up the ball & run 90 yards? Then how much time would be eaten up on an onside kick play?


Less time than what it would take to start from scratch from the 10 yard line.




This is the dumbest thread ever

StillPurple
09-25-2008, 04:51 PM
I thought that dumb threads got just deleted, rather than viewed by like 1540 people... ::)

BTW, why is it "negative" if I just point things out that I have seen ? I don't think that the original post was negative, it was more of an observation.

I guess I need to line up at that Kool-Aide line and start drinking, so that I can "remain positive" all the time.
::)

singersp
09-25-2008, 05:08 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I guess I need to line up at that Kool-Aide line and start drinking, so that I can "remain positive" all the time.
::)


Would your glass be half full or half empty?
:P


It's ok to be negative some of the time, but one has to be positive as well some of the time as well.

StillPurple
09-25-2008, 07:21 PM
Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.

ejmat
09-25-2008, 09:39 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.


I have to admit that is pretty positive.
Realistic?
Maybe.
I guess we'll see.

ragz
09-25-2008, 10:27 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.


I have to admit that is pretty positive.
Realistic?
Maybe.
I guess we'll see.

yah, i'm sure ferrotte was the missing piece to it all.
if we go to the show it has to do with the rest of the things coming together, as i've said, we could have won the same way with jackson, in fact should have weeks one and two.
if we go to the show it will have everything to do with our defense just becoming flatout dominant.
something they weren't completely enough in weeks one and two.

singersp
09-30-2008, 06:13 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.


You still feeling that way?

Purple Floyd
09-30-2008, 07:46 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.


You still feeling that way?


The Gus Bus is full. Only a select few have been granted PSL seating on it. The rest will have to wait by the curb.

Purple D
09-30-2008, 09:36 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.


You still feeling that way?


The Gus Bus is full. Only a select few have been granted PSL seating on it. The rest will have to wait by the curb.


When does the Garcia Bus pick up? ;D

i_bleed_purple
09-30-2008, 09:43 AM
"Purple" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Ok, how about this: with Frerotte "driving the bus", we can make it all the way to the Show.

Is that positive enough ?
;D ;D

A friend of mine (a non-Vikings fan) said that to me tonight, and I really agree with it.


You still feeling that way?


The Gus Bus is full. Only a select few have been granted PSL seating on it. The rest will have to wait by the curb.


When does the Garcia Bus pick up? ;D


a while still, but in the meantime, feel free to hitch a ride on the fire childress wagon

C Mac D
09-30-2008, 10:22 AM
It shouldn't be referred to as the "Fire Childress Wagon"... it should just be common sense.

Seriously, anyone watching Vikings games can plainly see, the guy is not cut out to be an NFL coach.

i_bleed_purple
09-30-2008, 10:24 AM
guy wasn't cut out to be a coordinator, Andy Reid didn't even let him call his own plays.
Doesn't the OC call them now in philly?
I could be wrong but i thought i heard Reid gave up playcalling duties.
Once that clown Childress left town.

C Mac D
09-30-2008, 10:28 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


guy wasn't cut out to be a coordinator, Andy Reid didn't even let him call his own plays.
Doesn't the OC call them now in philly?
I could be wrong but i thought i heard Reid gave up playcalling duties.

Once that clown Childress left town.


Hahaha... Probably true.

The best was punting it with two minutes left in the game and no time-outs, then claiming afterwords that the "Thought the defense played well enough that we'd get the ball back..."

A six year-old could do the math on that and realize all they have to do is take a knee and run the clock out.

I don't think Childress is too respected around the league... if for nothing else than the stupid blunder stated above (among many... many others).

i_bleed_purple
09-30-2008, 10:30 AM
did he actually say that?
Thats too funny.
It's gotten to the point that its almost funny

C Mac D
09-30-2008, 10:36 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


did he actually say that?
Thats too funny.
It's gotten to the point that its almost funny



Childress' Comments Reveal he's Not Fit For The Job.... (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/29/childress-comments-reveal-that-hes-not-fit-for-the-job/)

jmcdon00
09-30-2008, 11:10 AM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


did he actually say that?
Thats too funny.
It's gotten to the point that its almost funny



Childress' Comments Reveal he's Not Fit For The Job.... (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/29/childress-comments-reveal-that-hes-not-fit-for-the-job/)


So, regardless of the reason for his decision to punt, we’ve concluded that Childress isn’t a good coach.
And we think that, barring a dramatic turnaround, it’s time for him to go.
At least they give themselves an out. What's a dramatic turnaround? 8-8, 10-6, superbowl? I still think this team will find a way to win 10 games. Only 1/4 through the season and it was clearly the toughest 1/4.

C Mac D
09-30-2008, 11:15 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


did he actually say that?
Thats too funny.
It's gotten to the point that its almost funny



Childress' Comments Reveal he's Not Fit For The Job.... (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/29/childress-comments-reveal-that-hes-not-fit-for-the-job/)


So, regardless of the reason for his decision to punt, we’ve concluded that Childress isn’t a good coach.
And we think that, barring a dramatic turnaround, it’s time for him to go.
At least they give themselves an out. What's a dramatic turnaround? 8-8, 10-6, superbowl? I still think this team will find a way to win 10 games. Only 1/4 through the season and it was clearly the toughest 1/4.


Record is one way to look at it... but they may also mean a dramatic turnaround in Coaching as well... not making such stupid errors... such as this... on and off the field.

But if you think we are going to win 10 games... I'm not wasting my time arguing.