PDA

View Full Version : Fuzzy Math(2 pt conversion)



BootyCall
10-12-2008, 10:14 PM
Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?

SharperImage42
10-12-2008, 10:22 PM
welcome to PP.O you will fit right in!

singersp
10-12-2008, 10:22 PM
"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds pass the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The formula is quite simple;

Childress = Idiot

IMissCris
10-12-2008, 10:24 PM
Not that bad of a decision.....if we had gone for two and not got it, it would have been 10-8....meaning, if the Lions scored again (+7), it would have been 17-8, a nine-point differential, and thus, a two-possession game. And if that had happened, I think we all know we'd have been killing BC for not going two until he had two (as basic strategy dictates) and putting us in the hole by 9 potentially on a day when our offense, well, sucked.

V4L
10-12-2008, 10:25 PM
Excellent post and welcome!!

Im on the whatever bandwagon for QBs I guess

I like what I saw and I didnt at the same time today

IDK how Jackson would do but if he happened to come in I wouldn't mind

And welcome to the boards

jessejames09
10-12-2008, 10:26 PM
Couldn't watch the game but from what I understand there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity. Leaving your team down by a point, because your coach failed to do the grade school math is what some would call challenged hillbilly loverd.

Webby
10-12-2008, 10:30 PM
LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.
These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.
We won 2 in a row.
We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?

ultravikingfan
10-12-2008, 10:43 PM
There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.

V4L
10-12-2008, 10:44 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Agreed

But it just didn't make sense

If we didn't get it we are still down by 2 and need a FG

I just don't see why you wouldn't go for the tie regardless of the time on the clock

singersp
10-12-2008, 10:44 PM
"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.

VikesFan4Life
10-12-2008, 10:46 PM
"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The "Enter" key is your friend.
;D

Am I the only one that didn't have that big a problem with not going for two?
The conversion rate is quite low for those, and if you happen to not convert (which is VERY likey to happen with this offense) you screw yourself.


IMO, a two-point conversion at that point in the game just doesn't do much for you; kick an extra point and you're only down by 1, the Lions were doing practically nothing on offense, and there was plenty of time left in the game to win.

What do you Jared Allen negatives think about him now?
His pressure on Orlovsky caused him to stupidly step out the back of the end zone for a safety, and ended up being the ultimate difference in this game.

singersp
10-12-2008, 10:50 PM
"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess who is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Tice? Smoot? T-Will?

ultravikingfan
10-12-2008, 10:50 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.


No, Pass Interference does not count for YDS awarded to player or team.
Just penalty YDS.

Webby
10-12-2008, 10:50 PM
"Ragnarok" wrote:


"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The "Enter" key is your friend.
;D

Am I the only one that didn't have that big a problem with not going for two?
The conversion rate is quite low for those, and if you happen to not convert (which is VERY likey to happen with this offense) you screw yourself.


IMO, a two-point conversion at that point in the game just doesn't do much for you; kick an extra point and you're only down by 1, the Lions were doing practically nothing on offense, and there was plenty of time left in the game to win.

What do you Jared Allen negatives think about him now?
His pressure on Orlovsky caused him to stupidly step out the back of the end zone for a safety, and ended up being the ultimate difference in this game.


I didn't have a big problem with it.
Remember, they are arguing we should have because our offense was lagging.

Well, shit, isn't it our offense that needs to get those 2 points?
LMAO.

Nice arguments, right?

V4L
10-12-2008, 10:51 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.



No

The PI calls don't count with stats

And I think the first one could have been caught.. It swayed him off course alot.. Who knows if they would have caught it or not... Regardless the ball was in the air and he made contact so it was a call

I don't agree with the second call though.. He wouldnt have got near it anyway and it was not even contact really IMO

ultravikingfan
10-12-2008, 10:53 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.



No

The PI calls don't count with stats

And I think the first one could have been caught.. It swayed him off course alot.. Who knows if they would have caught it or not... Regardless the ball was in the air and he made contact so it was a call

I don't agree with the second call though.. He wouldnt have got near it anyway and it was not even contact really IMO


Too late!
Beatcha to it!
:D

V4L
10-12-2008, 10:54 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.



No

The PI calls don't count with stats

And I think the first one could have been caught.. It swayed him off course alot.. Who knows if they would have caught it or not... Regardless the ball was in the air and he made contact so it was a call

I don't agree with the second call though.. He wouldnt have got near it anyway and it was not even contact really IMO


Too late!
Beatcha to it!

:D


Lol

Just saw that, I was talkin to my girl and trying to type that response

singersp
10-12-2008, 11:05 PM
"Webby" wrote:


"Ragnarok" wrote:


"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The "Enter" key is your friend.
;D

Am I the only one that didn't have that big a problem with not going for two?
The conversion rate is quite low for those, and if you happen to not convert (which is VERY likey to happen with this offense) you screw yourself.


IMO, a two-point conversion at that point in the game just doesn't do much for you; kick an extra point and you're only down by 1, the Lions were doing practically nothing on offense, and there was plenty of time left in the game to win.

What do you Jared Allen negatives think about him now?
His pressure on Orlovsky caused him to stupidly step out the back of the end zone for a safety, and ended up being the ultimate difference in this game.


I didn't have a big problem with it.

Remember, they are arguing we should have because our offense was lagging.

Well, shit, isn't it our offense that needs to get those 2 points?

LMAO.

Nice arguments, right?
Well my point is this, yes our offense was lagging, but you have a chance to tie it up with a succesfull 2 point conversion. Miss it & you end up down by 2 vs. down by 1 with a PAT. Either scenario requires you to score to go ahead, so why not take that shot at that particular moment?


It's not like we were getting the ball into the redzone during the game & having more opportunities. In fact I believe that it was only the 2nd time in 3 quarters of play that we were down that deep in that end of the field.

V4L
10-12-2008, 11:07 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


"Ragnarok" wrote:


"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The "Enter" key is your friend.
;D

Am I the only one that didn't have that big a problem with not going for two?
The conversion rate is quite low for those, and if you happen to not convert (which is VERY likey to happen with this offense) you screw yourself.


IMO, a two-point conversion at that point in the game just doesn't do much for you; kick an extra point and you're only down by 1, the Lions were doing practically nothing on offense, and there was plenty of time left in the game to win.

What do you Jared Allen negatives think about him now?
His pressure on Orlovsky caused him to stupidly step out the back of the end zone for a safety, and ended up being the ultimate difference in this game.


I didn't have a big problem with it.

Remember, they are arguing we should have because our offense was lagging.

Well, pooh, isn't it our offense that needs to get those 2 points?

LMAO.

Nice arguments, right?
Well my point is this, yes our offense was lagging, but you have a chance to tie it up with a succesfull 2 point conversion. Miss it & you end up down by 2 vs. down by 1 with a PAT. Either scenario requires you to score to go ahead, so why not take that shot at that particular moment?


It's not like we were getting the ball into the redzone during the game & having more opportunities. In fact I believe that it was only the 2nd time in 3 quarters of play that we were down that deep in that end of the field.



Yah

I don't see any other way to go

It was plain stupid

Webby
10-12-2008, 11:10 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


"Ragnarok" wrote:


"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The "Enter" key is your friend.
;D

Am I the only one that didn't have that big a problem with not going for two?
The conversion rate is quite low for those, and if you happen to not convert (which is VERY likey to happen with this offense) you screw yourself.


IMO, a two-point conversion at that point in the game just doesn't do much for you; kick an extra point and you're only down by 1, the Lions were doing practically nothing on offense, and there was plenty of time left in the game to win.

What do you Jared Allen negatives think about him now?
His pressure on Orlovsky caused him to stupidly step out the back of the end zone for a safety, and ended up being the ultimate difference in this game.


I didn't have a big problem with it.

Remember, they are arguing we should have because our offense was lagging.

Well, pooh, isn't it our offense that needs to get those 2 points?

LMAO.

Nice arguments, right?
Well my point is this, yes our offense was lagging, but you have a chance to tie it up with a succesfull 2 point conversion. Miss it & you end up down by 2 vs. down by 1 with a PAT. Either scenario requires you to score to go ahead, so why not take that shot at that particular moment?


It's not like we were getting the ball into the redzone during the game & having more opportunities. In fact I believe that it was only the 2nd time in 3 quarters of play that we were down that deep in that end of the field.


The odds of them getting the 2 points is well below the NFL average, which is itself low.
They can't find end zone ever, I doubt this time would be magical.
I am certain Chilly whacks off to field goals.

V4L
10-12-2008, 11:12 PM
I understand our odds aren't that great

But really just give it a shot

Nothing to lose really except a meaningless point

ragz
10-12-2008, 11:16 PM
"Webby" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


"Ragnarok" wrote:


"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.
Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The "Enter" key is your friend.
;D

Am I the only one that didn't have that big a problem with not going for two?
The conversion rate is quite low for those, and if you happen to not convert (which is VERY likey to happen with this offense) you screw yourself.


IMO, a two-point conversion at that point in the game just doesn't do much for you; kick an extra point and you're only down by 1, the Lions were doing practically nothing on offense, and there was plenty of time left in the game to win.

What do you Jared Allen negatives think about him now?
His pressure on Orlovsky caused him to stupidly step out the back of the end zone for a safety, and ended up being the ultimate difference in this game.


I didn't have a big problem with it.
Remember, they are arguing we should have because our offense was lagging.

Well, pooh, isn't it our offense that needs to get those 2 points?
LMAO.

Nice arguments, right?
Well my point is this, yes our offense was lagging, but you have a chance to tie it up with a succesfull 2 point conversion. Miss it & you end up down by 2 vs. down by 1 with a PAT. Either scenario requires you to score to go ahead, so why not take that shot at that particular moment?


It's not like we were getting the ball into the redzone during the game & having more opportunities. In fact I believe that it was only the 2nd time in 3 quarters of play that we were down that deep in that end of the field.


The odds of them getting the 2 points is well below the NFL average, which is itself low.
They can't find end zone ever, I doubt this time would be magical.
I am certain Chilly whacks off to field goals.


i understood the thinking of not going for it, but my feeling, like apparently alot of people, is what if we dont get down there again?
i mean if we at least have a tie the vikes literally could have waited for a orlovsky to make a mistake and we win.
instead we still needed our offense to put together another drive.
though we did do it, we f-ed it up like we do in so many ways until a friendly pass interference call.
i would have went for it just cuz i felt like i couldnt guarantee we were going to even get down there again to get another shot.

ultravikingfan
10-12-2008, 11:49 PM
"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds past the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


http://www.albany.edu/alumni/Online_Community/arrow%20gif.gif

3cvotwO0Kwo

RK.
10-13-2008, 01:19 AM
The bottom line is I don't think Childress realized that a 1 pt conversion meant nothing to the outcome of the game where as a 2 pt conversion could have made a difference.
The only reason for not going for it was maybe he was afraid that not getting it would have been a let down for the O.
Other than that there was no reason not to give it a try.
I just don't think he thought it out nor did any of his coach's.

idahovikefan7
10-13-2008, 01:50 AM
IDK where you get this Jackson giving us "hope" from?? Putting him back in wouldn't change this team a bit IMO. This is a team sport and one guy isn't gonna give us this huge amount of "hope" you are looking for.

Ya childress is an idiot, but i still believe Gus should be in over TJ. When was the last time we saw a 300 yard passing game with this team??

C Mac D
10-13-2008, 02:06 AM
This is a farce... he proves to be a bigger joke every week.

V4L
10-13-2008, 02:14 AM
"C" wrote:


This is a farce... he proves to be a bigger joke every week.



It is something new every week

ragz
10-13-2008, 02:30 AM
"idahovikefan7" wrote:


IDK where you get this Jackson giving us "hope" from?? Putting him back in wouldn't change this team a bit IMO. This is a team sport and one guy isn't gonna give us this huge amount of "hope" you are looking for.

Ya childress is an idiot, but i still believe Gus should be in over TJ. When was the last time we saw a 300 yard passing game with this team??

who cares?
if we throw for 300 yards and score ten points, or rush for 200 and score ten points.
the important stats are 3rd down conversions and points and we are still terrible in all of them.
enough praise for the qb, how bout we start giving the credit where its due.
the defense.
i think we can say for sure as the season has gone on they have gotten better, something that no one can honestly say about the offense.
and is it that big of an accomplishment to throw for 300 yards against the lions.
wasn't the average qb rating against them this year like 130?
considering he threw a pick, one score, and had a 54 completion percentage i'm pretty sure he was no where close to that.
we have to get better, or hope that we can win a division at 8-8.
were not gonna get consistent pass interference calls and qbs running out the back of endzones every week.
if we dont improve we are not gonna be able to beat decent teams anywhere let alone on the road.

idahovikefan7
10-13-2008, 02:54 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"idahovikefan7" wrote:


IDK where you get this Jackson giving us "hope" from?? Putting him back in wouldn't change this team a bit IMO. This is a team sport and one guy isn't gonna give us this huge amount of "hope" you are looking for.

Ya childress is an idiot, but i still believe Gus should be in over TJ. When was the last time we saw a 300 yard passing game with this team??

who cares?
if we throw for 300 yards and score ten points, or rush for 200 and score ten points.
the important stats are 3rd down conversions and points and we are still terrible in all of them.
enough praise for the qb, how bout we start giving the credit where its due.
the defense.
i think we can say for sure as the season has gone on they have gotten better, something that no one can honestly say about the offense.
and is it that big of an accomplishment to throw for 300 yards against the lions.
wasn't the average qb rating against them this year like 130?
considering he threw a pick, one score, and had a 54 completion percentage i'm pretty sure he was no where close to that.
we have to get better, or hope that we can win a division at 8-8.
were not gonna get consistent pass interference calls and qbs running out the back of endzones every week.
if we dont improve we are not gonna be able to beat decent teams anywhere let alone on the road.



Well if you wanna talk about points, u have to factor in the fact we had a great drive stalled because of a fumble on the one yard line, and other mishaps as well. I know it was an ugly win and our team has a dump load of improvement that needs to be made to be a playoff caliber team, but i'm still happy with the win regardless.

I also believe if we can give gus some time to throw the dang ball, we will show improvement on the passing game as well. I really hope we can step it up against the bears and pull out another W. But if we keep playing the way we have as a "team" this is going to be a long year.....

ragz
10-13-2008, 03:09 AM
"idahovikefan7" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"idahovikefan7" wrote:


IDK where you get this Jackson giving us "hope" from?? Putting him back in wouldn't change this team a bit IMO. This is a team sport and one guy isn't gonna give us this huge amount of "hope" you are looking for.

Ya childress is an idiot, but i still believe Gus should be in over TJ. When was the last time we saw a 300 yard passing game with this team??

who cares?
if we throw for 300 yards and score ten points, or rush for 200 and score ten points.
the important stats are 3rd down conversions and points and we are still terrible in all of them.
enough praise for the qb, how bout we start giving the credit where its due.
the defense.
i think we can say for sure as the season has gone on they have gotten better, something that no one can honestly say about the offense.
and is it that big of an accomplishment to throw for 300 yards against the lions.
wasn't the average qb rating against them this year like 130?
considering he threw a pick, one score, and had a 54 completion percentage i'm pretty sure he was no where close to that.
we have to get better, or hope that we can win a division at 8-8.
were not gonna get consistent pass interference calls and qbs running out the back of endzones every week.
if we dont improve we are not gonna be able to beat decent teams anywhere let alone on the road.



Well if you wanna talk about points, u have to factor in the fact we had a great drive stalled because of a fumble on the one yard line, and other mishaps as well. I know it was an ugly win and our team has a dump load of improvement that needs to be made to be a playoff caliber team, but i'm still happy with the win regardless.

I also believe if we can give gus some time to throw the dang ball, we will show improvement on the passing game as well. I really hope we can step it up against the bears and pull out another W. But if we keep playing the way we have as a "team" this is going to be a long year.....

well some of that is still on ferrotte, cuz as much as everyone says teams respect our passnow, by the way they are coming at us it don't feel like it.
if we are gonna stop teams from putting so much pressure we have to convert 3rd downs and get more going than 10 points.
of course the fumble was huge early on, but its getting a little old to think that if we turn the ball over once than scoring again is such a chore.
i mean we got the ball 5 times last week and didnt turn it over once but still struggled moving teh ball.
too many pentalies, too many errant throws, especially on 3rd downs.
if we could seriously get anything going early in games i guarantee you'd see the pressure start weening and the running game really take over.
the way we've won our last two games is not a formula thats gonna work for us going forward.
but maybe thats the positive.
unless we keep doing it.

midgensa
10-13-2008, 03:15 AM
The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.
All in all ... I think the way the game was going we probably should have went for two. But there is definitely logic in not going for two.
As for Frerotte discussions ... I personally thought he played pretty well ... and has been fairly competent and steady since coming in. Does he have the occasional ball get away ... definitely. Is he an elite QB, definitely not ... but he is what we got, and I personally like him better than T-Jack right now.

ragz
10-13-2008, 03:24 AM
"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.
All in all ... I think the way the game was going we probably should have went for two. But there is definitely logic in not going for two.
As for Frerotte discussions ... I personally thought he played pretty well ... and has been fairly competent and steady since coming in. Does he have the occasional ball get away ... definitely. Is he an elite QB, definitely not ... but he is what we got, and I personally like him better than T-Jack right now.

i think i would totally agree if it wasn't for another game of 3-15 on 3rd down conversions.
this has been the biggest problem with our offense under childress and most people were just blaming jackson.
obviously ferrotte has had more oppurtunites to throw the ball and we still can't move the chains.
its easy to look at 3-1 and say we are definitely better off, but i think if we really broke it down we probably would have been in the same spot if they didnt make such a drastic move so quickly.
for what we've actually produced if jackson was going up against the lions im pretty confident he could have scored 10 offensive points also.
i really dont know what to do anymore about getting the pass game to be efficient.
i've basically just resorted to hoping it does.

midgensa
10-13-2008, 04:35 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.
All in all ... I think the way the game was going we probably should have went for two. But there is definitely logic in not going for two.
As for Frerotte discussions ... I personally thought he played pretty well ... and has been fairly competent and steady since coming in. Does he have the occasional ball get away ... definitely. Is he an elite QB, definitely not ... but he is what we got, and I personally like him better than T-Jack right now.

i think i would totally agree if it wasn't for another game of 3-15 on 3rd down conversions.
this has been the biggest problem with our offense under childress and most people were just blaming jackson.
obviously ferrotte has had more oppurtunites to throw the ball and we still can't move the chains.
its easy to look at 3-1 and say we are definitely better off, but i think if we really broke it down we probably would have been in the same spot if they didnt make such a drastic move so quickly.
for what we've actually produced if jackson was going up against the lions im pretty confident he could have scored 10 offensive points also.
i really dont know what to do anymore about getting the pass game to be efficient.
i've basically just resorted to hoping it does.


It is more efficient right now. Hell, today we really were not that bad off. If our playcalling on third down would figure itself out our offense would be solid. We have a QB that is on pace for 3500 yards despite missing two games. We have a receiver on pace for 1100 yards. We have a RB on pace for 1500.
We definitely are doing SOME things well.
BUT ... and it is a big ole but right up sir-mix-a-lot's alley ... we definitely struggle when it gets down to make or break time. We are TERRIBLE on third down. We are TERRIBLE in the red zone. We were both of these with T-Jack and without him. The difference is that now we aren't TERRIBLE everywhere else and we can hope we improve in those areas.
I am not saying that T-Jack should have been pulled when he was. I am saying that it would be wrong to go back to him now. That would basically be telling the team you have no idea what is going on ... and would basically be saying that we are throwing in the flag for this season since we have already made it clear we don't think we can win this year with him at the helm.

vikingivan
10-13-2008, 06:22 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"BootyCall" wrote:



Are you kidding me?
I spent nearly half the game wondering if passing up a chance at 2 pts was going to cost us the win.
Please...someone explain the math to me because I'm not as smart as Chilly.
HOW CAN YOU NOT GO FOR TWO?
Wait...I get it...Chill was counting on another safety out of the defense to give us the 11-10 win.


Bottom line is the offense is FUGLY.
Eight/Nine in the box and we can't hit a hot route to give AP a little room out there.
When anyone can show me the improvement the offense has shown because Gus is in and Action Jackson is out please drop me a note.
Gus stands in there and gets pounded except for a couple times a game where he throws out of fear and the zebras bail him out with a PI call downfield. I don't want to hear about Berrian's crossing route that turned into a big TD either....my mother could have hit him 5 yds pass the line of scrimmage for the same result.
Anyone else happen to notice how many balls were underthrown/overshot or into the turf today?
Gus has to go.
He doesn't have to go far.
Just over to the bench where he looks best wearing that headset.
We aren't going to win a playoff game with this band-aid in under center.
Put T-Jax back in.
He isn't the Messiah but he gives us something that Gus can't.
HOPE.
This team would be 3-3 without the QB change and TJ would have had 4 more games of experience to draw from.
BC was trigger happy because he was scared of losing his job.
I've got a news flash for you Vikings fans...Childress is gone if we don't win at least 1 game in the playoffs and that isn't going to happen with run-run-pray Gus can hit a 4 yd slant every 3rd down so why doesn't Chill GROW SOME and ride his horse till the end.
At least at the end of the day we would know if TJax is for real.
Please don't post any BS that Gus gives us a better chance to win either because anyone who thinks we are bringing home the Lombardi with that old man under center is kidding themselves.

Put Jax in.
Play it out.
Let it ride.
If the best we do with Gus is 8-8 at the end of the day, I'd rather give the kid the reigns and see if we can get some first downs.
Lets face it....this sh*$ we saw today....doesn't inspire people.
I'm not going to get a hard on watching our kicker get game balls the rest of the year, are you?


The formula is quite simple;

Childress = Idiot


Childress should be fired today for his idiocy.
Unbelievable!!!

Purple Floyd
10-13-2008, 07:47 AM
Fire Childress.

Prophet
10-13-2008, 08:08 AM
"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.
All in all ... I think the way the game was going we probably should have went for two. But there is definitely logic in not going for two.
As for Frerotte discussions ... I personally thought he played pretty well ... and has been fairly competent and steady since coming in. Does he have the occasional ball get away ... definitely. Is he an elite QB, definitely not ... but he is what we got, and I personally like him better than T-Jack right now.


The two pt conversion is not rocket science.
I swear some of you think that coaches just, off the cuff, decide on whether or not to go for two instead of the extra pt.
It takes about 10 min. to create a cheat sheet that gives you the pros/cons of going for two pts based on the score, time left in the game, etc.

Marrdro
10-13-2008, 08:36 AM
Welcome to the site my friend.
Post well and often.
Judging by your first post you will.

Couple of things to ponder though........

a.
We are struggling but wouldn't that kindof make sense when you have the following issues:


1.
Rookie playing S because your free agent signeeeeee hasn't played a game yet this year. By the way, the rookie isn't playing half bad.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

2.
Your Starting WR hasn't been healthy all year.
By the way that guy is better suited in the slot but yet he leads the team in receptions.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

3.
Starting LT missed the first 4 games and Hicks (I can't believe I have to give him props) actually played decent over there. In fact the team had a better running attack with him in there vice Big Mac so far.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

4.
Of our first 5 games we were in everyone of them even though the competition wasn't a push over.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

5.
Team never gives up and keeps on fight squeeking out two victories from the jaws of defeat even though alot of yutz's on here believe the team will eventually self destruct on itself and the HC will lose the team.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

6.
We just saw a (almost) 300 yd passing game out of our QB.
A QB by the way most feel is a piece of shit.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

7.
We just saw a WR get back to back 100 yard recieving games in I don't know how long.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

8.
Our team won yesterday after our star RB put the ball on the turf twice and our QB threw a INT in critical points of the game.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

9.
We lost not only our starting MLB but our ace special teams tackler and our backup MLB was injured all game yesterday and still kept running back out on the field.
HC should be fired for that one I'm sure.

10. Even after all of that, we are tied for the division lead with a decent schedule ahead of us and could still pull this out of the bag.
HC should be fired over that one I'm sure.

Long story short, we have problems with depth and yet the backups continue to step up.
We need a QB and yet we are seeing some productivity at that position.
Are we the SB favorite that alot of the sports hacks got the yutz fans to by into?
Hell no, but we aren't as bad as alot of them are now saying we are either.

Strap it on my friend.
Its gonna be a long bumpy one but should provide some entertainment along the way.
;D

scottishvike
10-13-2008, 06:13 PM
When you criticize some play calls it's a matter of opinion as you never know if something has gone wrong that isn't immediately obvious. However not going for the 2 point conversion yesterday was just wrong whatever way you look at it, the sad thing is Childress has admitted to having a chart (such as below) and he still doesn't go for it, all I can say is WTF?


Q. On his decision not to go for two points after the Vikings pulled within 10-8 in the third quarter Sunday.

A. Well, I just happened to bring my 2-point chart out with me because I thought I might have a question or two on the 2-point chart. Does anybody know what the 2-point conversion rate is in the National Football League right now? Didn’t think so. It’s about 44.8 percent right now. So my point was taking the points. Now is it a sure thing you’re going to kick an extra point? No, because we had a field goal blocked yesterday. I just thought it was early with what we were doing to go for two and put ourselves back.


http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=2035

2 Point conversion chart when behind....
First column is points behind, second is go for 1 third is go for 2, I know its a bit hard to read!

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g279/scottishvike/PointsBehind.jpg

BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.

NodakPaul
10-13-2008, 06:21 PM
"scottishvike" wrote:


BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.
We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.

singersp
10-13-2008, 06:49 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.


??? So we kick the extra point & it's 10-9. If the Lions score another TD it is 17-9 and you still need two scores.

I fail to see your or Childress' logic there.

On the other hand if you make the 2 point conversion, you have a tie ball game

NodakPaul
10-13-2008, 06:52 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.


??? So we kick the extra point & it's 10-9. If the Lions score another TD it is 17-9 and you still need two scores.

I fail to see your or Childress' logic there.

On the other hand if you make the 2 point conversion, you have a tie ball game


17-9 is a one score game.

midgensa
10-13-2008, 06:53 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.


??? So we kick the extra point & it's 10-9. If the Lions score another TD it is 17-9 and you still need two scores.

I fail to see your or Childress' logic there.

On the other hand if you make the 2 point conversion, you have a tie ball game


17-9 is a one score game.


Thank you Nodak. I already said I think in THIS game we probably should have went for two. I was just pointing out the reasoning for taking the PAT. It is fairly common to do to make sure it remains a one possession game.

singersp
10-13-2008, 06:55 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


??? Still have a fighting chance? How so? Regardless if you are down by 8 or 9 in the 4th quarter, you still need to score twice or go for a 2 point conversion after a TD. I don't see much difference in going for it in the 3rd or 4th quarter.

scottishvike
10-13-2008, 06:56 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


Ok fair enough Nodak I can see that angle but say we kick the point after and the Lions do score a TD to go 8 ahead we would have to go for a 2 pointer next anyway so why not attempt it right away? Even If we don't convert, it doesn't hurt if they make a FG as A TD wins it for us anyway, if they don't score at all a FG still wins it for us and obviously if we make it the scores are tied. The other thing I would say is it's Ok talking about the league average but aren't we supposed to be one of the best teams at running the ball? The game was not looking like being high scoring either so IMO take the chance to tie it up when you can, because let's be honest without the dodgy PI call we may never had another shot. I guess conservative is Childress's middle name, but if you ask me looking at all the possible outcomes not going for 2 was being cautious in the extreme.

singersp
10-13-2008, 06:57 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.


??? So we kick the extra point & it's 10-9. If the Lions score another TD it is 17-9 and you still need two scores.

I fail to see your or Childress' logic there.

On the other hand if you make the 2 point conversion, you have a tie ball game


17-9 is a one score game.


It is? How so? By going for a 2 point conversion which many of us said to go for in the first place?

midgensa
10-13-2008, 06:59 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.


??? So we kick the extra point & it's 10-9. If the Lions score another TD it is 17-9 and you still need two scores.

I fail to see your or Childress' logic there.

On the other hand if you make the 2 point conversion, you have a tie ball game


17-9 is a one score game.


It is? How so? By going for a 2 point conversion which many of us said to go for in the first place?


Correct it is a one-score game by going for two. The point is ... most coaches will not go for two until they absolutely have to due to the low rate of success in the NFL.
As I said. I personally think he should have went for two there. But many coaches would have done the same thing to make sure at worst it stayed a one possession game.

midgensa
10-13-2008, 07:02 PM
"scottishvike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


Ok fair enough Nodak I can see that angle but say we kick the point after and the Lions do score a TD to go 8 ahead we would have to go for a 2 pointer next anyway so why not attempt it right away? Even If we don't convert, it doesn't hurt if they make a FG as A TD wins it for us anyway, if they don't score at all a FG still wins it for us and obviously if we make it the scores are tied. The other thing I would say is it's Ok talking about the league average but aren't we supposed to be one of the best teams at running the ball? The game was not looking like being high scoring either so IMO take the chance to tie it up when you can, because let's be honest without the dodgy PI call we may never had another shot. I guess conservative is Childress's middle name, but if you ask me looking at all the possible outcomes not going for 2 was being cautious in the extreme.



Yes ... you would have to go for the two-pointer next time anyway ... but the point is that most coaches do not want a two-possession game late. If we go and miss and they put a TD on there board there is a lot of reason to panic.
If we kick the extra point and they score a TD panic is at a minimum and you now know you HAVE to go for two.
Now the problems we have had scoring, and with the monster play that led to the TD ... I would have liked to see Chilly ride the momentum and go for two. But the point is ... this is not one of those ridiculously dumb Childress moments like throwing a 20 yard pass to Shank on 3rd and 1. This one actually has some merit.

singersp
10-13-2008, 07:07 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


The major reason not to go for two at that point of the game is if you miss you are trailing 10-8, IF the Lions score another TD it is 17-8 and now you need two scores.


??? So we kick the extra point & it's 10-9. If the Lions score another TD it is 17-9 and you still need two scores.

I fail to see your or Childress' logic there.

On the other hand if you make the 2 point conversion, you have a tie ball game


17-9 is a one score game.


It is? How so? By going for a 2 point conversion which many of us said to go for in the first place?


Correct it is a one-score game by going for two. The point is ... most coaches will not go for two until they absolutely have to due to the low rate of success in the NFL.
As I said. I personally think he should have went for two there. But many coaches would have done the same thing to make sure at worst it stayed a one possession game.


And had they made it, it would be a tie ball game, down by 0 instead of down by 1. The way our offense was playing, I think the smart decision would have taken that opportunity.

scottishvike
10-13-2008, 07:18 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


Ok fair enough Nodak I can see that angle but say we kick the point after and the Lions do score a TD to go 8 ahead we would have to go for a 2 pointer next anyway so why not attempt it right away? Even If we don't convert, it doesn't hurt if they make a FG as A TD wins it for us anyway, if they don't score at all a FG still wins it for us and obviously if we make it the scores are tied. The other thing I would say is it's Ok talking about the league average but aren't we supposed to be one of the best teams at running the ball? The game was not looking like being high scoring either so IMO take the chance to tie it up when you can, because let's be honest without the dodgy PI call we may never had another shot. I guess conservative is Childress's middle name, but if you ask me looking at all the possible outcomes not going for 2 was being cautious in the extreme.



Yes ... you would have to go for the two-pointer next time anyway ... but the point is that most coaches do not want a two-possession game late. If we go and miss and they put a TD on there board there is a lot of reason to panic.
If we kick the extra point and they score a TD panic is at a minimum and you now know you HAVE to go for two.
Now the problems we have had scoring, and with the monster play that led to the TD ... I would have liked to see Chilly ride the momentum and go for two. But the point is ... this is not one of those ridiculously dumb Childress moments like throwing a 20 yard pass to Shank on 3rd and 1. This one actually has some merit.


It may not have been ridiculously dumb but it's certainly showing fear, fear that your running game can't take it in from the 1 and fear that your defense can't stop the opposition from getting into the end zone.

midgensa
10-13-2008, 07:38 PM
"scottishvike" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


Ok fair enough Nodak I can see that angle but say we kick the point after and the Lions do score a TD to go 8 ahead we would have to go for a 2 pointer next anyway so why not attempt it right away? Even If we don't convert, it doesn't hurt if they make a FG as A TD wins it for us anyway, if they don't score at all a FG still wins it for us and obviously if we make it the scores are tied. The other thing I would say is it's Ok talking about the league average but aren't we supposed to be one of the best teams at running the ball? The game was not looking like being high scoring either so IMO take the chance to tie it up when you can, because let's be honest without the dodgy PI call we may never had another shot. I guess conservative is Childress's middle name, but if you ask me looking at all the possible outcomes not going for 2 was being cautious in the extreme.



Yes ... you would have to go for the two-pointer next time anyway ... but the point is that most coaches do not want a two-possession game late. If we go and miss and they put a TD on there board there is a lot of reason to panic.
If we kick the extra point and they score a TD panic is at a minimum and you now know you HAVE to go for two.
Now the problems we have had scoring, and with the monster play that led to the TD ... I would have liked to see Chilly ride the momentum and go for two. But the point is ... this is not one of those ridiculously dumb Childress moments like throwing a 20 yard pass to Shank on 3rd and 1. This one actually has some merit.


It may not have been ridiculously dumb but it's certainly showing fear, fear that your running game can't take it in from the 1 and fear that your defense can't stop the opposition from getting into the end zone.


It is not the 1 by the way it is on the two yard line.
I do agree that it showed a little fear. And at that point in that game we probably should have taken our shot. I just don't think this is one of those moves where we should be blasting Chilly when there are definitely reasons for taking the one point.
There are plenty of other reasons to blast Chilly.

singersp
10-13-2008, 07:43 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


Ok fair enough Nodak I can see that angle but say we kick the point after and the Lions do score a TD to go 8 ahead we would have to go for a 2 pointer next anyway so why not attempt it right away? Even If we don't convert, it doesn't hurt if they make a FG as A TD wins it for us anyway, if they don't score at all a FG still wins it for us and obviously if we make it the scores are tied. The other thing I would say is it's Ok talking about the league average but aren't we supposed to be one of the best teams at running the ball? The game was not looking like being high scoring either so IMO take the chance to tie it up when you can, because let's be honest without the dodgy PI call we may never had another shot. I guess conservative is Childress's middle name, but if you ask me looking at all the possible outcomes not going for 2 was being cautious in the extreme.



Yes ... you would have to go for the two-pointer next time anyway ... but the point is that most coaches do not want a two-possession game late. If we go and miss and they put a TD on there board there is a lot of reason to panic.
If we kick the extra point and they score a TD panic is at a minimum and you now know you HAVE to go for two.
Now the problems we have had scoring, and with the monster play that led to the TD ... I would have liked to see Chilly ride the momentum and go for two. But the point is ... this is not one of those ridiculously dumb Childress moments like throwing a 20 yard pass to Shank on 3rd and 1. This one actually has some merit.


It may not have been ridiculously dumb but it's certainly showing fear, fear that your running game can't take it in from the 1 and fear that your defense can't stop the opposition from getting into the end zone.


It is not the 1 by the way it is on the two yard line.
I do agree that it showed a little fear. And at that point in that game we probably should have taken our shot. I just don't think this is one of those moves where we should be blasting Chilly when there are definitely reasons for taking the one point.
There are plenty of other reasons to blast Chilly.


Had we not gotten that last second FG & lost 10-9, how many of you that are praising Childress for his PAT decision been singing a different tune at the end of the game?
;)

midgensa
10-13-2008, 07:46 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"scottishvike" wrote:






BTW If someone can explain to me why going for 1 was the correct choice please tell me, because I sure as hell can't see it.


I'll try, but people don't like to hear it...

That chart that you posted is NOT time sensitive.
It does not distinguish between the first quarter or the last.

We scored a TD, and were down by 2 points in the third quarter, meaning that there was still a lot of football to go.

If we went for the 2 pointer and make it, all is good.
But let's say we go for the 2 point and miss.
If Detroit scores a TD anytime in the 4th, we are down by 9 - that's TWO scores.


While XPs aren't automatic, they succeed a helluva lot more that 2PTs.
A made XP put us down by 1, meaning that if Detroit scores a TD, we are only down by 8.
One score.
That is a pretty big difference.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down 8, you still have a fighting chance.
If it is late in the 4th and you are down by 9, it is a helluva lot harder to come away with a W.

Some would call it playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
And that is an acceptable criticism.
But both calls - the 2PT and the XP - have merit.
I don't think either one would have been the wrong call.


Ok fair enough Nodak I can see that angle but say we kick the point after and the Lions do score a TD to go 8 ahead we would have to go for a 2 pointer next anyway so why not attempt it right away? Even If we don't convert, it doesn't hurt if they make a FG as A TD wins it for us anyway, if they don't score at all a FG still wins it for us and obviously if we make it the scores are tied. The other thing I would say is it's Ok talking about the league average but aren't we supposed to be one of the best teams at running the ball? The game was not looking like being high scoring either so IMO take the chance to tie it up when you can, because let's be honest without the dodgy PI call we may never had another shot. I guess conservative is Childress's middle name, but if you ask me looking at all the possible outcomes not going for 2 was being cautious in the extreme.



Yes ... you would have to go for the two-pointer next time anyway ... but the point is that most coaches do not want a two-possession game late. If we go and miss and they put a TD on there board there is a lot of reason to panic.
If we kick the extra point and they score a TD panic is at a minimum and you now know you HAVE to go for two.
Now the problems we have had scoring, and with the monster play that led to the TD ... I would have liked to see Chilly ride the momentum and go for two. But the point is ... this is not one of those ridiculously dumb Childress moments like throwing a 20 yard pass to Shank on 3rd and 1. This one actually has some merit.


It may not have been ridiculously dumb but it's certainly showing fear, fear that your running game can't take it in from the 1 and fear that your defense can't stop the opposition from getting into the end zone.


It is not the 1 by the way it is on the two yard line.
I do agree that it showed a little fear. And at that point in that game we probably should have taken our shot. I just don't think this is one of those moves where we should be blasting Chilly when there are definitely reasons for taking the one point.
There are plenty of other reasons to blast Chilly.


Had we not gotten that last second FG & lost 10-9, how many of you that are praising Childress for his PAT decision been singing a different tune at the end of the game?
;)


C'mon Singer. You clearly are not reading between the lines here. I have said numerous times that I would have preferred he went for two here. And yes, obviously it would have looked much worse had we lost by a point.
None-the-less we a) didn't lose by a point and b) there are clear reasons to not go for two. That is all we have stated.
I am pretty sure all of us have said that we would have went for two personally. I just understand the other side here. That is all.

ragz
10-13-2008, 11:55 PM
well i heard on the nfl network that according to the bible of 2 pt conv, "the sheet", we should have went for it.
what confuses me is childress being a little flip floppy about it compared to other decisions.
how many times did he settle for stuff under the assumption that the defense would get us a stop.
but then in this instance hes playing the odds that we are gonna give up a td.
i mean 2 weeks previous he was punting with under 2 minutes left and no timeouts assuming the defense would get a stop and we could get the ball back.
meanwhile all they had to do was knell.


i mean anyway you try to reason it, most people are not giving him the benefit of the doubt cuz he's been so stupid before and becuz his offense has been so bad that to think we'd be down there again was pushing it a bit.
i dont think people are sitting and thinking that its a terrible decision as much as they doubt childress was actually making the decision with good reason.

NDVikingFan66
10-14-2008, 12:15 AM
"ragz" wrote:


well i heard on the nfl network that according to the bible of 2 pt conv, "the sheet", we should have went for it.
what confuses me is childress being a little flip floppy about it compared to other decisions.
how many times did he settle for stuff under the assumption that the defense would get us a stop.
but then in this instance hes playing the odds that we are gonna give up a td.
i mean 2 weeks previous he was punting with under 2 minutes left and no timeouts assuming the defense would get a stop and we could get the ball back.
meanwhile all they had to do was knell.


i mean anyway you try to reason it, most people are not giving him the benefit of the doubt cuz he's been so stupid before and becuz his offense has been so bad that to think we'd be down there again was pushing it a bit.
i dont think people are sitting and thinking that its a terrible decision as much as they doubt childress was actually making the decision with good reason.



I screamed at the TV when we did not go for 2, but after evaluating everything I understood the decision and certainly will not fault Chilly for it.
Way to many other things to worry about that he does, that are much more serious.
My rationale for going for it was purely a momentum thing.
I wanted to ride a wave and make a statement.
I would have told AP your going right up the gut, and told my offensive line time to make a statement.

singersp
10-14-2008, 08:51 PM
"NDVikingFan66" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


well i heard on the nfl network that according to the bible of 2 pt conv, "the sheet", we should have went for it.
what confuses me is childress being a little flip floppy about it compared to other decisions.
how many times did he settle for stuff under the assumption that the defense would get us a stop.
but then in this instance hes playing the odds that we are gonna give up a td.
i mean 2 weeks previous he was punting with under 2 minutes left and no timeouts assuming the defense would get a stop and we could get the ball back.
meanwhile all they had to do was knell.


i mean anyway you try to reason it, most people are not giving him the benefit of the doubt cuz he's been so stupid before and becuz his offense has been so bad that to think we'd be down there again was pushing it a bit.
i dont think people are sitting and thinking that its a terrible decision as much as they doubt childress was actually making the decision with good reason.



I screamed at the TV when we did not go for 2, but after evaluating everything I understood the decision and certainly will not fault Chilly for it.
Way to many other things to worry about that he does, that are much more serious.
My rationale for going for it was purely a momentum thing.
I wanted to ride a wave and make a statement.
I would have told AP your going right up the gut, and told my offensive line time to make a statement.



That going right up the gut hasn't been a high percentage run for AD this year.

marstc09
10-14-2008, 09:03 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Time left for what? None of the offenses were doing jack shit. What makes you think anymore scoring was going to happen? What if we lost 10-9? What would you be saying then? We should have went for 2. Nothing that I saw on the field would make me believe we would get another shot at scoring again. Lack of 3rd down conversions, failed red zone attempts, and a dumb ass head coach is all i saw.

NDVikingFan66
10-14-2008, 09:16 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NDVikingFan66" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


well i heard on the nfl network that according to the bible of 2 pt conv, "the sheet", we should have went for it.
what confuses me is childress being a little flip floppy about it compared to other decisions.
how many times did he settle for stuff under the assumption that the defense would get us a stop.
but then in this instance hes playing the odds that we are gonna give up a td.
i mean 2 weeks previous he was punting with under 2 minutes left and no timeouts assuming the defense would get a stop and we could get the ball back.
meanwhile all they had to do was knell.


i mean anyway you try to reason it, most people are not giving him the benefit of the doubt cuz he's been so stupid before and becuz his offense has been so bad that to think we'd be down there again was pushing it a bit.
i dont think people are sitting and thinking that its a terrible decision as much as they doubt childress was actually making the decision with good reason.



I screamed at the TV when we did not go for 2, but after evaluating everything I understood the decision and certainly will not fault Chilly for it.
Way to many other things to worry about that he does, that are much more serious.
My rationale for going for it was purely a momentum thing.
I wanted to ride a wave and make a statement.
I would have told AP your going right up the gut, and told my offensive line time to make a statement.



That going right up the gut hasn't been a high percentage run for AD this year.


I know that, but my point was more about the message to send to the team, the Lions, and the fans.
Watch this as we cram this right down the throat.

ultravikingfan
10-14-2008, 09:35 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Time left for what? None of the offenses were doing jack shit. What makes you think anymore scoring was going to happen? What if we lost 10-9? What would you be saying then? We should have went for 2. Nothing that I saw on the field would make me believe we would get another shot at scoring again. Lack of 3rd down conversions, failed red zone attempts, and a dumb ass head coach is all i saw.


Plenty of time left to score.
And we did with a FG!

marstc09
10-14-2008, 09:38 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Time left for what? None of the offenses were doing jack shit. What makes you think anymore scoring was going to happen? What if we lost 10-9? What would you be saying then? We should have went for 2. Nothing that I saw on the field would make me believe we would get another shot at scoring again. Lack of 3rd down conversions, failed red zone attempts, and a dumb ass head coach is all i saw.


Plenty of time left to score.
And we did with a FG!




Thanks to the refs.

ItalianStallion
10-14-2008, 09:42 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Time left for what? None of the offenses were doing jack pooh. What makes you think anymore scoring was going to happen? What if we lost 10-9? What would you be saying then? We should have went for 2. Nothing that I saw on the field would make me believe we would get another shot at scoring again. Lack of 3rd down conversions, failed red zone attempts, and a dumb jiggly butt head coach is all i saw.


Plenty of time left to score.
And we did with a FG!




The FG would have won it with or without the 2 point conversion, at least if we got the 2 pointer, we would have been tied without the game winning field goal.

i_bleed_purple
10-14-2008, 09:50 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Time left for what? None of the offenses were doing jack pooh. What makes you think anymore scoring was going to happen? What if we lost 10-9? What would you be saying then? We should have went for 2. Nothing that I saw on the field would make me believe we would get another shot at scoring again. Lack of 3rd down conversions, failed red zone attempts, and a dumb jiggly butt head coach is all i saw.


Plenty of time left to score.
And we did with a FG!




The FG would have won it with or without the 2 point conversion, at least if we got the 2 pointer, we would have been tied without the game winning field goal.


had we gotten the 2pt conversion, we wouldn't have had to rely on a terrible pass interference call to get us in field goal range to avoid an embarrassing loss

midgensa
10-14-2008, 09:53 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


There was plenty of time left in the game IMHO.



Time left for what? None of the offenses were doing jack pooh. What makes you think anymore scoring was going to happen? What if we lost 10-9? What would you be saying then? We should have went for 2. Nothing that I saw on the field would make me believe we would get another shot at scoring again. Lack of 3rd down conversions, failed red zone attempts, and a dumb jiggly butt head coach is all i saw.


Plenty of time left to score.
And we did with a FG!




The FG would have won it with or without the 2 point conversion, at least if we got the 2 pointer, we would have been tied without the game winning field goal.


had we gotten the 2pt conversion, we wouldn't have had to rely on a terrible pass interference call to get us in field goal range to avoid an embarrassing loss

Yeah we would have. It still would have only been tied. Without that call the Lions beat us in OT right?

NDVikingFan66
10-14-2008, 10:04 PM
and aside from that, the way both offenses were playing, we should not have been playing for the win, but rather escape with a tie :)

Randy Moss
10-15-2008, 10:20 AM
I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 10:27 AM
"Randy" wrote:


I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.




You are absolutely correct.
You never, NEVER, chase points before the third quarter.

I'll admit it, I was pulling for the 2PT myself... but that it one of the many reasons I am a fan, not a coach.
Not that I have had time to think about it, I completely understand the decision not to.
Childress did not make a poor decision here.

C Mac D
10-15-2008, 10:29 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Randy" wrote:


I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.




You are absolutely correct.
You never, NEVER, chase points before the third quarter.

I'll admit it, I was pulling for the 2PT myself... but that it one of the many reasons I am a fan, not a coach.
Not that I have had time to think about it, I completely understand the decision not to.
Childress did not make a poor decision here.


Thank goodness that non-existent pass interference call saved him.

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 10:33 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Randy" wrote:


I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.




You are absolutely correct.
You never, NEVER, chase points before the third quarter.

I'll admit it, I was pulling for the 2PT myself... but that it one of the many reasons I am a fan, not a coach.
Not that I have had time to think about it, I completely understand the decision not to.
Childress did not make a poor decision here.


Thank goodness that non-existent pass interference call saved him.


Coaches make the correct decision and lose sometimes.
Just like coaches make the wrong decision and win sometimes.
The fact that it came down to a last minute field goal aided by a questionable call does not change the fact that it was the correct decision at the time.

marstc09
10-15-2008, 10:36 AM
"Randy" wrote:


I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.





Childress decided it would be likely that one team would score a TD in the last 25 minutes???!!!! Guess what, that did not happen! How pissed would you have been if we lost 10-9? I bet Chilly would not be here.

C Mac D
10-15-2008, 10:39 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Randy" wrote:


I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.




You are absolutely correct.
You never, NEVER, chase points before the third quarter.

I'll admit it, I was pulling for the 2PT myself... but that it one of the many reasons I am a fan, not a coach.
Not that I have had time to think about it, I completely understand the decision not to.
Childress did not make a poor decision here.


Thank goodness that non-existent pass interference call saved him.


Coaches make the correct decision and lose sometimes.
Just like coaches make the wrong decision and win sometimes.
The fact that it came down to a last minute field goal aided by a questionable call does not change the fact that it was the correct decision at the time.


Excuses, excuses... I'm sure he'll get his ass saved by some penalty or something next game too...

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 10:42 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Randy" wrote:


I can't believe that nobody understands why we didn't go for two.
It's pretty simple.
Childress decided that it was likely that one team would score a touchdown in the last 25 minutes.

Basically, no matter what Detroit does, they would only be one score ahead unless we let them score twice.
You all would have been pissed if we missed and Detroit scored putting us down by 9.




You are absolutely correct.
You never, NEVER, chase points before the third quarter.

I'll admit it, I was pulling for the 2PT myself... but that it one of the many reasons I am a fan, not a coach.
Not that I have had time to think about it, I completely understand the decision not to.
Childress did not make a poor decision here.


Thank goodness that non-existent pass interference call saved him.


Coaches make the correct decision and lose sometimes.
Just like coaches make the wrong decision and win sometimes.
The fact that it came down to a last minute field goal aided by a questionable call does not change the fact that it was the correct decision at the time.


Excuses, excuses... I'm sure he'll get his jiggly butt saved by some penalty or something next game too...



Excuses my ass. I want Childress gone as much as you do.
But I want him gone for the right reasons - because he has consistently fielded a team that is average at best.
Not because of some misguided belief that he made a poor decision on a 2PT attempt.

BTW Remember when we lost to the Colts, and I was one of the few people on here we refused to attribute the loss to the blown call on the Addai TD?
Well I also refuse to credit a win to a blown call.
Bad calls happen.
And in the end, good teams find a way to win despite bad calls.

C Mac D
10-15-2008, 10:48 AM
No... It's because he doesn't know how to field a team at all... he doesn't utilize his staff (although - Sauce FINALLY got the ball last game... and at least Taylor had more than one carry!!!! Maybe he's learning...). We rank last in red zone scoring, not to mention we have Peterson and Taylor, yet we're ranked 24th in the league in rushing TDs... the T-Jack project was a failure (even if half the blame can be put on Shaincoe), and now it's almost 3 years later, and we have Gus Ferrotte as our starting QB.

It's a pattern...

Listen, even Peterson said he wouldn't want anyone else leading the team... so I guess there's not much I can say about that... but allow me to continue to laugh and rant about this team, because it's outright funny. Anyone who doesn't see it, go back to bed.

El Vikingo
10-15-2008, 11:26 AM
"C" wrote:




Excuses, excuses... I'm sure he'll get his ass saved by some penalty or something next game too...



If that means we get a W next Sunday,I could live with the moustache headcoaching

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 11:26 AM
"C" wrote:


No... It's because he doesn't know how to field a team at all... he doesn't utilize his staff (although - Sauce FINALLY got the ball last game... and at least Taylor had more than one carry!!!! Maybe he's learning...). We rank last in red zone scoring, not to mention we have Peterson and Taylor, yet we're ranked 24th in the league in rushing TDs... the T-Jack project was a failure (even if half the blame can be put on Shaincoe), and now it's almost 3 years later, and we have Gus Ferrotte as our starting QB.

It's a pattern...

Listen, even Peterson said he wouldn't want anyone else leading the team... so I guess there's not much I can say about that... but allow me to continue to laugh and rant about this team, because it's outright funny. Anyone who doesn't see it, go back to bed.




All valid reasons, and all ones that I agree with.


The 2PT is the only one with which I side with Childress.

Bkfldviking
10-15-2008, 11:31 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.


No.
PI does not count as passing yardage, it may be posted under first downs gained by penalty, but not passing.
Passing yardage comes when the ball is thrown and caught for either positive or negative yards (i.e. when Peterson caught that pass five yards behind the line of scrimage and was immediately tackled that dropped Gus out of his 300 yard game.).
A better question is does the yardage lost in a sack count against the passing totals?
I don't think they do, but I am not 100% sure.

El Vikingo
10-15-2008, 11:32 AM
When you are 10-8 ,you gotta go for it ,no escuses ,unless you are a conservative and coward ass wich btw is tha case

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 11:36 AM
"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Webby" wrote:


LOL.
Gus throws for 296 and AP runs for 111.

These guys are doing their damndest despite the madness.
The three forced fumbles and INT is what mucked up an otherwise okay (not great or stellar or neat) afternoon for the O...except the line which can't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Gus got tagged repeatedly and Jax would have peed himself and went home by then.

Let's get back to reality.

We won 2 in a row.

We have problems all related back to the same few problems.

Guess what is usually responsible for terrible execution, penalties and poorly played schemes (which they themselves may be poor)?


Question I am not sure of. Obviously Berrians 80 yard scamper pads that 296 yards passing, but in the case of those two pass interference calls, are those yards part of Gus' 296 passing yards stats?

If so, it goes to show you how stats don't tell the whole story. Those to passes appeared to me, two passes that wouldn't have been caught.


No.
PI does not count as passing yardage, it may be posted under first downs gained by penalty, but not passing.
Passing yardage comes when the ball is thrown and caught for either positive or negative yards (i.e. when Peterson caught that pass five yards behind the line of scrimage and was immediately tackled that dropped Gus out of his 300 yard game.).
A better question is does the yardage lost in a sack count against the passing totals?
I don't think they do, but I am not 100% sure.


You are correct - they don't.
Yards lost in a sack are not recorded in passing or rushing yards for the QB.
It is technically its own category, but not one that is often reported.

I double checked by adding up the yards attributed to receivers - it also equals 296.
I was surprised to see that AD is credited with -5 receiving yards.
That was that screen on the last drive of the game.
Had it not been for that, Gus would have had over 300 yards...

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 11:38 AM
"El" wrote:


When you are 10-8 ,you gotta go for it ,no escuses ,unless you are a conservative and coward jiggly butt wich btw is tha case


What is more likely?
You go for 2 and make it, or you go for 2 and miss it, and the opposing team scores at least one TD sometime in the next 25 minutes of game time?

Going for it would not have been the wrong choice, but neither was going for the 1.
It has nothing with being a coward.

happy camper
10-15-2008, 11:41 AM
If you do not go for two on the basis of you are scared to not get it and then the Lions scoring a TD then being down by 9..

c'mon.

play to win.
::)

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 11:42 AM
"happy" wrote:


If you do not go for two on the basis of you are scared to not get it and then the Lions scoring a TD then being down by 9..

c'mon.

play to win.
::)


We did win.
Remember?

C Mac D
10-15-2008, 11:42 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"El" wrote:


When you are 10-8 ,you gotta go for it ,no escuses ,unless you are a conservative and coward jiggly butt wich btw is tha case


What is more likely?
You go for 2 and make it, or you go for 2 and miss it, and the opposing team scores at least one TD sometime in the next 25 minutes of game time?

Going for it would not have been the wrong choice, but neither was going for the 1.
It has nothing with being a coward.


While I agree that any other coach would be justified in going for the 1-point... Childress should know that we don't see the endzone very often on Offense, and this past Sunday wasn't any different.

El Vikingo
10-15-2008, 11:48 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"El" wrote:


When you are 10-8 ,you gotta go for it ,no escuses ,unless you are a conservative and coward jiggly butt wich btw is tha case


What is more likely?
You go for 2 and make it, or you go for 2 and miss it, and the opposing team scores at least one TD sometime in the next 25 minutes of game time?

Going for it would not have been the wrong choice, but neither was going for the 1.
It has nothing with being a coward.


This could be an endless talk
,we went for 1 ,and it was 10-9 then If the Lions had scored a TD ,they could also have gone for the 2 point conv. leading us by 2 scores
as well....It was too early in the game to speculate with result,I would have gone for it ,imagine If we had lost 10-9
::),which btw almost happened....

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 12:46 PM
"El" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"El" wrote:


When you are 10-8 ,you gotta go for it ,no escuses ,unless you are a conservative and coward jiggly butt wich btw is tha case


What is more likely?
You go for 2 and make it, or you go for 2 and miss it, and the opposing team scores at least one TD sometime in the next 25 minutes of game time?

Going for it would not have been the wrong choice, but neither was going for the 1.
It has nothing with being a coward.


This could be an endless talk
,we went for 1 ,and it was 10-9 then If the Lions had scored a TD ,they could also have gone for the 2 point conv. leading us by 2 scores
as well....It was too early in the game to speculate with result,I would have gone for it ,imagine If we had lost 10-9
::),which btw almost happened....


If the Lions had scored a TD, there is no way in hell they would have gone for 2.
If they fail, then we tie it with an XP.
Never happen.

I probably would have gone for it as well.
But that doesn't make Childress's decision wrong.

happy camper
10-15-2008, 12:51 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"happy" wrote:


If you do not go for two on the basis of you are scared to not get it and then the Lions scoring a TD then being down by 9..

c'mon.

play to win.
::)


We did win.
Remember?


Winning does not make every decision made to be correct.

At that point in the game Brad Childress made the decision to play to not lose rather than being aggressive. I think its gutless. Like I said, not going for two on the basis of you are scared you will miss it and the other team will get a TD (especially a team like the Lions) is gutless.

Rundown of the situations:

1) You go for it and get it - tie game
2) You go for it and miss, the Lions do not score again, still down by field goal ( same as taking XP)
3) You go for it and miss, the Lions score a field goal, down by a TD (or two field goals)
4) You go for it and miss, the Lions score another TD, down by 9 with plenty of time left

I guess Childress was right though. Because if we got down by 9 points, unless our defense scored, I think we would pretty much be done.

ColoradoViking
10-15-2008, 01:18 PM
What was it like in the stadium?... Was everybody shocked and angry when we didn't go for two? Were they still excited enough about the TD be happy?

Zeus
10-15-2008, 01:20 PM
"ColoradoViking" wrote:


What was it like in the stadium?... Was everybody shocked and angry when we didn't go for two? Were they still excited enough about the TD be happy?


I can only speak for those around me in Section 215.
We were definitely confused as to why they did not go for two.
But not angry - at least not at that point.
There was still lots of time left in the 2nd half.

=Z=

ColoradoViking
10-15-2008, 01:49 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"ColoradoViking" wrote:


What was it like in the stadium?... Was everybody shocked and angry when we didn't go for two? Were they still excited enough about the TD be happy?


I can only speak for those around me in Section 215.
We were definitely confused as to why they did not go for two.
But not angry - at least not at that point.
There was still lots of time left in the 2nd half.

=Z=

That's kind of what I thought... I was wondering if a failed two pointer might have taken the air out of the room a bit... just when there was finally something to be excited about.

CCthebest
10-15-2008, 01:54 PM
Of course he should have went for 2pt conversion. But we CANT score in the endzone, so he took the safe route. Which sucks, but typical.

ColoradoViking
10-15-2008, 02:09 PM
Well anyway, I still think this decision was more defendable than the whole Titans game punting boner. That was some seriously fuzzy math.... fuzzy and furry- Italian style

NodakPaul
10-15-2008, 02:35 PM
"ColoradoViking" wrote:


Well anyway, I still think this decision was more defendable than the whole Titans game punting boner. That was some seriously fuzzy math.... fuzzy and furry- Italian style


Correct.
The titans game was an example of ineptness.
The Lions game was a decision.
Not everybody may agree with the decision, but it was not a bad one.

tastywaves
10-15-2008, 03:17 PM
There are many good explanations in this thread as to why a coach would elect to go for 1 vs 2 pts.
I would not have been pissed at Childress whether he decided to go for 1 or 2.
There is good rationale for both.


However, I will ask one question to all those claiming Childress' decision to go for one was not in the spirit of playing to win the game.
How does 2 pts guarantee you a win any more than going for 1, a tie isn't a win?

In order to win MN has to score again (regardless of 1 vs 2 pt conversion) whether in regulation time or overtime.
If I'm playing to win, I understand that this isn't the last time I need to score.
Whether its a FG, a TD or a combination.
Expecting the game to end at 10-10 when you're early in the 3rd quarter is pretty much a defeatist attitude.


Granted, it turned out to be a pathetic display of offense through the remainder of the game, but I don't think anyone was expecting a 12-10 game against the Lions.
If Childress believed it was likely to end at 10-10, I would be even more upset with the guy and the belief he has in our offense.
I think most people in this forum understands the likelihood of getting 1 vs 2 is much higher.
By going for 1, you guaranteed to be within one score.
At 10-9, you have to score again to win, just like at 10-10.
At 10-8 you may have to score twice.
A coach that believes his offense can score again with 25 minutes to go is a hell of a lot better than a coach who believes its unlikely he'll score again.
By going for one, he showed me that he believed they would score again.
Many can argue that this is foolish because we suck, and that may be the right thought, but I don't fault Childress for having faith in his offense to win the game.


Again, I would not have had any heartache with a decision for 1 or 2 points, both indicate faith in your offense the way I see it.
I would also bet that there would be a lot of division among the 32 head coaches on what they would have done in the same situation.

The punt in the Titans game to guarantee a loss was much worse.
That was inexcusable and a brain fart for sure.

marstc09
10-15-2008, 03:33 PM
"ColoradoViking" wrote:


What was it like in the stadium?... Was everybody shocked and angry when we didn't go for two? Were they still excited enough about the TD be happy?


I am never shocked because it is Childress. If he can call a timeout and then challenge a play at the same time, then this is nothing. The TD was sweet.

Zeus
10-15-2008, 03:34 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"ColoradoViking" wrote:


What was it like in the stadium?... Was everybody shocked and angry when we didn't go for two? Were they still excited enough about the TD be happy?


I am never shocked because it is Childress. If he can call a timeout and then challenge a play at the same time, then this is nothing. The TD was sweet.


Yeah - it was like Bernard was running right to us!

=Z=

singersp
10-15-2008, 07:41 PM
"tastywaves" wrote:


There are many good explanations in this thread as to why a coach would elect to go for 1 vs 2 pts.
I would not have been pissed at Childress whether he decided to go for 1 or 2.
There is good rationale for both.


However, I will ask one question to all those claiming Childress' decision to go for one was not in the spirit of playing to win the game.
How does 2 pts guarantee you a win any more than going for 1, a tie isn't a win?

In order to win MN has to score again (regardless of 1 vs 2 pt conversion) whether in regulation time or overtime.
If I'm playing to win, I understand that this isn't the last time I need to score.
Whether its a FG, a TD or a combination.
Expecting the game to end at 10-10 when you're early in the 3rd quarter is pretty much a defeatist attitude.


Granted, it turned out to be a pathetic display of offense through the remainder of the game, but I don't think anyone was expecting a 12-10 game against the Lions.
If Childress believed it was likely to end at 10-10, I would be even more upset with the guy and the belief he has in our offense.
I think most people in this forum understands the likelihood of getting 1 vs 2 is much higher.
By going for 1, you guaranteed to be within one score.
At 10-9, you have to score again to win, just like at 10-10.
At 10-8 you may have to score twice.

A coach that believes his offense can score again with 25 minutes to go is a hell of a lot better than a coach who believes its unlikely he'll score again.
By going for one, he showed me that he believed they would score again.
Many can argue that this is foolish because we suck, and that may be the right thought, but I don't fault Childress for having faith in his offense to win the game.


Again, I would not have had any heartache with a decision for 1 or 2 points, both indicate faith in your offense the way I see it.
I would also bet that there would be a lot of division among the 32 head coaches on what they would have done in the same situation.

The punt in the Titans game to guarantee a loss was much worse.
That was inexcusable and a brain fart for sure.



It doesn't guarantee you a win, nor does it suggest you are hoping for a tie game & overtime. You are still trying to win the game with another score, but if time winds down to seconds & you don't have the ball, would you rather be sitting at 10-10 or 10-9?

Prophet
10-16-2008, 08:44 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"tastywaves" wrote:


There are many good explanations in this thread as to why a coach would elect to go for 1 vs 2 pts.
I would not have been pissed at Childress whether he decided to go for 1 or 2.
There is good rationale for both.


However, I will ask one question to all those claiming Childress' decision to go for one was not in the spirit of playing to win the game.
How does 2 pts guarantee you a win any more than going for 1, a tie isn't a win?

In order to win MN has to score again (regardless of 1 vs 2 pt conversion) whether in regulation time or overtime.
If I'm playing to win, I understand that this isn't the last time I need to score.
Whether its a FG, a TD or a combination.
Expecting the game to end at 10-10 when you're early in the 3rd quarter is pretty much a defeatist attitude.


Granted, it turned out to be a pathetic display of offense through the remainder of the game, but I don't think anyone was expecting a 12-10 game against the Lions.
If Childress believed it was likely to end at 10-10, I would be even more upset with the guy and the belief he has in our offense.
I think most people in this forum understands the likelihood of getting 1 vs 2 is much higher.
By going for 1, you guaranteed to be within one score.
At 10-9, you have to score again to win, just like at 10-10.
At 10-8 you may have to score twice.

A coach that believes his offense can score again with 25 minutes to go is a hell of a lot better than a coach who believes its unlikely he'll score again.
By going for one, he showed me that he believed they would score again.
Many can argue that this is foolish because we suck, and that may be the right thought, but I don't fault Childress for having faith in his offense to win the game.


Again, I would not have had any heartache with a decision for 1 or 2 points, both indicate faith in your offense the way I see it.
I would also bet that there would be a lot of division among the 32 head coaches on what they would have done in the same situation.

The punt in the Titans game to guarantee a loss was much worse.
That was inexcusable and a brain fart for sure.



It doesn't guarantee you a win, nor does it suggest you are hoping for a tie game & overtime. You are still trying to win the game with another score, but if time winds down to seconds & you don't have the ball, would you rather be sitting at 10-10 or 10-9?


What if scenarios are typically lame, especially after a W.
You can play the what if game with different scenarios, when there's well over a quarter left to play the decision was a judgement call with pros/cons on either side.

singersp
10-16-2008, 08:47 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"tastywaves" wrote:


There are many good explanations in this thread as to why a coach would elect to go for 1 vs 2 pts.
I would not have been pissed at Childress whether he decided to go for 1 or 2.
There is good rationale for both.


However, I will ask one question to all those claiming Childress' decision to go for one was not in the spirit of playing to win the game.
How does 2 pts guarantee you a win any more than going for 1, a tie isn't a win?

In order to win MN has to score again (regardless of 1 vs 2 pt conversion) whether in regulation time or overtime.
If I'm playing to win, I understand that this isn't the last time I need to score.
Whether its a FG, a TD or a combination.
Expecting the game to end at 10-10 when you're early in the 3rd quarter is pretty much a defeatist attitude.


Granted, it turned out to be a pathetic display of offense through the remainder of the game, but I don't think anyone was expecting a 12-10 game against the Lions.
If Childress believed it was likely to end at 10-10, I would be even more upset with the guy and the belief he has in our offense.
I think most people in this forum understands the likelihood of getting 1 vs 2 is much higher.
By going for 1, you guaranteed to be within one score.
At 10-9, you have to score again to win, just like at 10-10.
At 10-8 you may have to score twice.

A coach that believes his offense can score again with 25 minutes to go is a hell of a lot better than a coach who believes its unlikely he'll score again.
By going for one, he showed me that he believed they would score again.
Many can argue that this is foolish because we suck, and that may be the right thought, but I don't fault Childress for having faith in his offense to win the game.


Again, I would not have had any heartache with a decision for 1 or 2 points, both indicate faith in your offense the way I see it.
I would also bet that there would be a lot of division among the 32 head coaches on what they would have done in the same situation.

The punt in the Titans game to guarantee a loss was much worse.
That was inexcusable and a brain fart for sure.



It doesn't guarantee you a win, nor does it suggest you are hoping for a tie game & overtime. You are still trying to win the game with another score, but if time winds down to seconds & you don't have the ball, would you rather be sitting at 10-10 or 10-9?


What if scenarios are typically lame, especially after a W.
You can play the what if game with different scenarios, when there's well over a quarter left to play the decision was a judgement call with pros/cons on either side.


Yup and that judgment call was made by a coach who took a time out to decide whether or not to challenge a play & then burned a second time out when he decided to do so.
:P

tastywaves
10-16-2008, 10:14 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"tastywaves" wrote:


There are many good explanations in this thread as to why a coach would elect to go for 1 vs 2 pts.
I would not have been pissed at Childress whether he decided to go for 1 or 2.
There is good rationale for both.


However, I will ask one question to all those claiming Childress' decision to go for one was not in the spirit of playing to win the game.
How does 2 pts guarantee you a win any more than going for 1, a tie isn't a win?

In order to win MN has to score again (regardless of 1 vs 2 pt conversion) whether in regulation time or overtime.
If I'm playing to win, I understand that this isn't the last time I need to score.
Whether its a FG, a TD or a combination.
Expecting the game to end at 10-10 when you're early in the 3rd quarter is pretty much a defeatist attitude.


Granted, it turned out to be a pathetic display of offense through the remainder of the game, but I don't think anyone was expecting a 12-10 game against the Lions.
If Childress believed it was likely to end at 10-10, I would be even more upset with the guy and the belief he has in our offense.
I think most people in this forum understands the likelihood of getting 1 vs 2 is much higher.
By going for 1, you guaranteed to be within one score.
At 10-9, you have to score again to win, just like at 10-10.
At 10-8 you may have to score twice.

A coach that believes his offense can score again with 25 minutes to go is a hell of a lot better than a coach who believes its unlikely he'll score again.
By going for one, he showed me that he believed they would score again.
Many can argue that this is foolish because we suck, and that may be the right thought, but I don't fault Childress for having faith in his offense to win the game.


Again, I would not have had any heartache with a decision for 1 or 2 points, both indicate faith in your offense the way I see it.
I would also bet that there would be a lot of division among the 32 head coaches on what they would have done in the same situation.

The punt in the Titans game to guarantee a loss was much worse.
That was inexcusable and a brain fart for sure.



It doesn't guarantee you a win, nor does it suggest you are hoping for a tie game & overtime. You are still trying to win the game with another score, but if time winds down to seconds & you don't have the ball, would you rather be sitting at 10-10 or 10-9?


What if scenarios are typically lame, especially after a W.
You can play the what if game with different scenarios, when there's well over a quarter left to play the decision was a judgement call with pros/cons on either side.


Yup and that judgment call was made by a coach who took a time out to decide whether or not to challenge a play & then burned a second time out when he decided to do so.
:P


Yes, and that is probably why people are on his ass about this call.
If you do not have faith in Childress' judgement (which I don't blame anyone), than anything he does is put to question, whether it was a rationale decision or not.

The timeout to call a timeout and the punting to guarantee a loss were both major screw ups.

Prophet
10-16-2008, 10:20 AM
"tastywaves" wrote:


...The timeout to call a timeout and the punting to guarantee a loss were both major screw ups.

Yes.
The punting to guarantee a loss was in the top stupidest coaching decisions I have ever seen.

ragz
10-16-2008, 07:11 PM
exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that moron might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so retarded.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.

singersp
10-16-2008, 07:14 PM
"ragz" wrote:


exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that moron might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so retarded.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



Well at least he proved to you that he's an arrogant prick.

NodakPaul
10-16-2008, 07:16 PM
"ragz" wrote:


exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that silly guy might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



I don't like Childress - but he is not arrogant or a prick.
I also listened to the press conference live - he was not being condescending or cocky during it.
He actually had a good report with the reporters.

It is fine to dislike Childress and want him gone, but stop reading too much into what you read online.
Especially in this case - when Childress made a good decision.
Yes, the conversion rate would have been the same... but ideally you aren't put into a position in which you have to go for the 2PT.
Take off the I-hate-Childress blinders for a second and you will see it.
He was in a situation where either going for it or not going for it both had merit.

ragz
10-16-2008, 07:21 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that silly guy might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



Well at least he proved to you that he's an arrogant prick.

actually nodak, if you read an earlier post in the thread i said exactly that.
and said that the qeustioning came down to the fact childress has managed games poorly in the past so we dont give him the benefit of the doubt.
but i heard the press conference.
and when you ask a question, and then respond by saying i didnt think so.
you are doing something that wreaks of rude.

and singer good point.
sometimes i cant stand to listen to his press conferences cuz of how he acts like any question is so stupid to him.
like god forbid you question childress at times on his bone headed decisions.
and then when he responds about kings clothes, or getting the ball back with no timeouts under 2 minutes, you start to think, "where the hell does this guy get off acting smart?"

NodakPaul
10-16-2008, 08:55 PM
"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that silly guy might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



Well at least he proved to you that he's an arrogant prick.

actually nodak, if you read an earlier post in the thread i said exactly that.
and said that the qeustioning came down to the fact childress has managed games poorly in the past so we dont give him the benefit of the doubt.
but i heard the press conference.
and when you ask a question, and then respond by saying i didnt think so.
you are doing something that wreaks of rude.

and singer good point.
sometimes i cant stand to listen to his press conferences cuz of how he acts like any question is so stupid to him.
like god forbid you question childress at times on his bone headed decisions.
and then when he responds about kings clothes, or getting the ball back with no timeouts under 2 minutes, you start to think, "where the hell does this guy get off acting smart?"


I don't see how he was being rude.
It was handled well IMHO... Question his stupid decisions all you want.
Lord knows he has made enough to give you reason to question his decision making ability.
But stop acting like the 2PT was a horrible decision, and stop reading into every quote you can find to drum up more hatred.
And calling him an arrogant prick just because you don't like him is, well, acting like a prick.

ragz
10-17-2008, 01:06 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that silly guy might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



Well at least he proved to you that he's an arrogant prick.

actually nodak, if you read an earlier post in the thread i said exactly that.
and said that the qeustioning came down to the fact childress has managed games poorly in the past so we dont give him the benefit of the doubt.
but i heard the press conference.
and when you ask a question, and then respond by saying i didnt think so.
you are doing something that wreaks of rude.

and singer good point.
sometimes i cant stand to listen to his press conferences cuz of how he acts like any question is so stupid to him.
like god forbid you question childress at times on his bone headed decisions.
and then when he responds about kings clothes, or getting the ball back with no timeouts under 2 minutes, you start to think, "where the hell does this guy get off acting smart?"


I don't see how he was being rude.
It was handled well IMHO... Question his stupid decisions all you want.
Lord knows he has made enough to give you reason to question his decision making ability.
But stop acting like the 2PT was a horrible decision, and stop reading into every quote you can find to drum up more hatred.
And calling him an arrogant prick just because you don't like him is, well, acting like a prick.

so i guess you ignored the fact that i said the decision could have gone either way and that the decision wasn't horrible but since you like calling people names you can go with that if it makes me more of a prick to you.
and whats with this "quote i can find"?
hello, this is a thread about the 2 pt conversion, he addressed it by acting as if the decision was based on his huge 45% stat, which i'm sure he had just sitting on the sideline which convinced him to kick the extra point.
and as if that stat is so telling.
"oh so childress, you mean about half the time people convert 2 pt conversions?
well thanx for putting us in our place for asking the question of why you didn't go for it.
i would have never guessed about half the time teams convert."


did he answer the question asked?
no.
he asked a rhetorical question, and then followed with a "I DIDN'T THINK SO".
as if that explained it all.
i dont have to read much into anything to know thats him acting as if he shouldn't have to be questioned on his decision.
which if i look up the definition of arrogant, it would probably sound something like that.
and then if i look about the way he chose to answer the question, wala, pricky.
i.e; arrogant prick.
its not rocket science and not the first time hes acted that way.
but if you wanna make it about me, all yours pal.

singersp
10-17-2008, 09:35 PM
"ragz" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that silly guy might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



Well at least he proved to you that he's an arrogant prick.

actually nodak, if you read an earlier post in the thread i said exactly that.
and said that the qeustioning came down to the fact childress has managed games poorly in the past so we dont give him the benefit of the doubt.
but i heard the press conference.
and when you ask a question, and then respond by saying i didnt think so.
you are doing something that wreaks of rude.

and singer good point.
sometimes i cant stand to listen to his press conferences cuz of how he acts like any question is so stupid to him.
like god forbid you question childress at times on his bone headed decisions.
and then when he responds about kings clothes, or getting the ball back with no timeouts under 2 minutes, you start to think, "where the hell does this guy get off acting smart?"


I don't see how he was being rude.
It was handled well IMHO... Question his stupid decisions all you want.
Lord knows he has made enough to give you reason to question his decision making ability.
But stop acting like the 2PT was a horrible decision, and stop reading into every quote you can find to drum up more hatred.
And calling him an arrogant prick just because you don't like him is, well, acting like a prick.

so i guess you ignored the fact that i said the decision could have gone either way and that the decision wasn't horrible but since you like calling people names you can go with that if it makes me more of a prick to you.
and whats with this "quote i can find"?
hello, this is a thread about the 2 pt conversion, he addressed it by acting as if the decision was based on his huge 45% stat, which i'm sure he had just sitting on the sideline which convinced him to kick the extra point.
and as if that stat is so telling.
"oh so childress, you mean about half the time people convert 2 pt conversions?
well thanx for putting us in our place for asking the question of why you didn't go for it.
i would have never guessed about half the time teams convert."


did he answer the question asked?
no.
he asked a rhetorical question, and then followed with a "I DIDN'T THINK SO".
as if that explained it all.
i dont have to read much into anything to know thats him acting as if he shouldn't have to be questioned on his decision.
which if i look up the definition of arrogant, it would probably sound something like that.
and then if i look about the way he chose to answer the question, wala, pricky.
i.e; arrogant prick.
its not rocket science and not the first time hes acted that way.
but if you wanna make it about me, all yours pal.



I'm sure Ragz will find this little snippet interesting....


Too often, Childress stands at the lectern and acts as if he's the smartest guy in the room, especially when the Vikings aren't playing well. Criticism is never easy to take. But talking down to people you consider intellectually inferior is the wrong way to handle it.

http://www.minnpost.com/patborzi/2008/10/17/3918/vikings_childress_joins_a_long_list_of_nfl_coaches_on_the_fans_firing_line

Marrdro
10-18-2008, 09:30 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:




exactly.
the fans aren't looking at it like it was a rationale decision by childress.
they're looking at it like "that silly guy might have just cost us a game."
it worked out, but in the end i think the fans want to hear his explanation cuz most of them are so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.
and we got what we wanted when he pulled out his 45% conversion rate as if he was totally blowing up the media.
did any of you read that article where the guy questions childress on his red zone and 3rd down percentages?
he acted as if he blew everybodys mind that 2 point conversions are about 50% effective.
well if detroit did score a td, which i figure was the logic for kicking, then the conversion rate would have still been the same later in the game so what was he proving?
hes an arrogant prick and to me he hasn't proven much of anything for him to have such a condescending demeanor about him.



Well at least he proved to you that he's an arrogant prick.

actually nodak, if you read an earlier post in the thread i said exactly that.
and said that the qeustioning came down to the fact childress has managed games poorly in the past so we dont give him the benefit of the doubt.
but i heard the press conference.
and when you ask a question, and then respond by saying i didnt think so.
you are doing something that wreaks of rude.

and singer good point.
sometimes i cant stand to listen to his press conferences cuz of how he acts like any question is so stupid to him.
like god forbid you question childress at times on his bone headed decisions.
and then when he responds about kings clothes, or getting the ball back with no timeouts under 2 minutes, you start to think, "where the hell does this guy get off acting smart?"


I don't see how he was being rude.
It was handled well IMHO... Question his stupid decisions all you want.
Lord knows he has made enough to give you reason to question his decision making ability.
But stop acting like the 2PT was a horrible decision, and stop reading into every quote you can find to drum up more hatred.
And calling him an arrogant prick just because you don't like him is, well, acting like a prick.

so i guess you ignored the fact that i said the decision could have gone either way and that the decision wasn't horrible but since you like calling people names you can go with that if it makes me more of a prick to you.
and whats with this "quote i can find"?
hello, this is a thread about the 2 pt conversion, he addressed it by acting as if the decision was based on his huge 45% stat, which i'm sure he had just sitting on the sideline which convinced him to kick the extra point.
and as if that stat is so telling.
"oh so childress, you mean about half the time people convert 2 pt conversions?
well thanx for putting us in our place for asking the question of why you didn't go for it.
i would have never guessed about half the time teams convert."


did he answer the question asked?
no.
he asked a rhetorical question, and then followed with a "I DIDN'T THINK SO".
as if that explained it all.
i dont have to read much into anything to know thats him acting as if he shouldn't have to be questioned on his decision.
which if i look up the definition of arrogant, it would probably sound something like that.
and then if i look about the way he chose to answer the question, wala, pricky.
i.e; arrogant prick.
its not rocket science and not the first time hes acted that way.
but if you wanna make it about me, all yours pal.



I'm sure Ragz will find this little snippet interesting....


Too often, Childress stands at the lectern and acts as if he's the smartest guy in the room, especially when the Vikings aren't playing well. Criticism is never easy to take. But talking down to people you consider intellectually inferior is the wrong way to handle it.

http://www.minnpost.com/patborzi/2008/10/17/3918/vikings_childress_joins_a_long_list_of_nfl_coaches_on_the_fans_firing_line


And sometimes a yutz needs a wake up call.
Best way in my book to do that is to jolt them with a bit of reality or at least some facts to get them back on track.


I've been reading what spews from that media area up there for years.
Me thinks most of them need a little talking down to.........

Go getem Chiller.
;D
;D

NodakPaul
10-18-2008, 09:14 PM
[]

ragz
10-19-2008, 02:14 AM
[]

Marrdro
10-19-2008, 06:07 AM
[]