PDA

View Full Version : Coaching failures hurt the Vikings’ potential



Pages : [1] 2

singersp
01-07-2009, 07:56 AM
Coaching failures hurt the Vikings’ potential (http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/2009/jan/06/coaching-failures-hurt-vikings-potential/)

Tim Engstrom, Pothole Prairie

Published Tuesday, January 6, 2009


What happened to the Minnesota Vikings?

Fans are upset with coach Brad Childress after the team Sunday lost a playoff game to the Philadelphia Eagles 26-14. But you know what? The fans are correct. And I’m not the sort of fan to say that quickly. I usually back the coaches......

singersp
01-07-2009, 08:15 AM
Childress acts like Green in some ways (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/37183969.html)

In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: January 7, 2009 - 12:09 AM


Dennis Green's playoff record fell to 0-3 on Jan. 1, 1995. It came in the Metrodome by a decisive 35-18 score against a Chicago team coached by Dave Wannstedt and quarterbacked by backup Steve Walsh....

misplacedminnesotan
01-07-2009, 08:37 AM
Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.

singersp
01-07-2009, 09:51 AM
"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss....


It's only been that way here since Smoot was not resigned.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 09:53 AM
"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


they may not win in spite of the coach, but they sure as hell don't win because of him most of the time.... Again, they are underachievers... bottom line!...

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 10:03 AM
In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like shit.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat asses out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.

kevoncox
01-07-2009, 10:35 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 10:36 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

ejmat
01-07-2009, 10:36 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like shit.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat asses out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


It's as simple as this guy going to on line sites such as this and using his feedback to what the fans are saying.
An easy way to blend in with the crowd so to speak.
He even admitted this at the end of his article.
He didn't say one thing that any of us didn't say on this site.

kevoncox
01-07-2009, 10:38 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 10:40 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!

Prophet
01-07-2009, 10:44 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

kevoncox
01-07-2009, 10:47 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:





In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 10:50 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:







In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?


Couple of quick questions.....

a. Do you think the Chiller has the lattitude to fire someone on his own or do you think a plethera of FO pukes have to also participate in that (ala legal, contracting, PR, VP of Player Personell etc etc etc)?

b. Who is a better starter on the roster right now?
Seems to me the FO hasn't given him many options of late or is there a guy on the roster I am missing.

Don't even come with the rationale that our HC makes player personnel decisions of that nature cause we know that is the job of the VP of Player Presonnel don't we?
::)

Prophet
01-07-2009, 10:57 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:







In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their ass out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so retarded that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 10:59 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:









In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?


Couple of quick questions.....

a. Do you think the Chiller has the lattitude to fire someone on his own or do you think a plethera of FO pukes have to also participate in that (ala legal, contracting, PR, VP of Player Personell etc etc etc)?

b. Who is a better starter on the roster right now?
Seems to me the FO hasn't given him many options of late or is there a guy on the roster I am missing.

Don't even come with the rationale that our HC makes player personnel decisions of that nature cause we know that is the job of the VP of Player Presonnel don't we?

::)


Chilly did cut that guy.. C'MON!!!.. you act like he doens't have say so in who's on the roster... i think that was his decision.... We dont' have your typical FO structure like most teams... Remember Chilly was hired before all of them... and he was part of the interview process...

and another point it was chilly's decision to fine Twill last year for the funeral thing and when vet's spoke up, CHilly decided to pay him.. so dont act like he doesn't have muscle in that front office...

if anything i think they all work together... and are pretty much on the same page.. remember, it was Foley who was fired for not getting along (along with the resume thing) and having an ego trip and all... NOT CHILLY...

Zeus
01-07-2009, 11:00 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:









In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their ass out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so retarded that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.


I'd like to point out that the Vikings were in a "hurry-up" or "2-minute" offense when Birk hiked the ball before Tarvaris was ready and the final turnover happened on Sunday.
And that Birk hiked the ball too early comes from BIRK DIRECTLY AFTER THE GAME ON KFAN, before some douche jumps on Tarvaris.

=Z=

jargomcfargo
01-07-2009, 11:01 AM
You don't need a 2 minute drill when you have a KAO. I'm still waiting for it to kick in.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 11:02 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:









In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their jiggly butt out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.


i agree, esp. since they had one last year... but along with the QB, i think they all had some issues in the clock management stand point in the 2 min drill...

I was wondering why they weren't in hurry up mode as well, most of the 4th quarter against Philly... (they weren't against ATL), but then I remembered, you have to complete a pass to be in hurry up!!.. LOL!!! oh, well, that's why we dont' have a 2 min drill!!!

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 11:06 AM
*Sigh....

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 11:07 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:











In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?


Couple of quick questions.....

a. Do you think the Chiller has the lattitude to fire someone on his own or do you think a plethera of FO pukes have to also participate in that (ala legal, contracting, PR, VP of Player Personell etc etc etc)?

b. Who is a better starter on the roster right now?
Seems to me the FO hasn't given him many options of late or is there a guy on the roster I am missing.

Don't even come with the rationale that our HC makes player personnel decisions of that nature cause we know that is the job of the VP of Player Presonnel don't we?

::)


Chilly did cut that guy.. C'MON!!!.. you act like he doens't have say so in who's on the roster... i think that was his decision.... We dont' have your typical FO structure like most teams... Remember Chilly was hired before all of them... and he was part of the interview process...

and another point it was chilly's decision to fine Twill last year for the funeral thing and when vet's spoke up, CHilly decided to pay him.. so dont act like he doesn't have muscle in that front office...

if anything i think they all work together... and are pretty much on the same page.. remember, it was Foley who was fired for not getting along (along with the resume thing) and having an ego trip and all... NOT CHILLY...

Nope, I don't act like he has no say.
Infact I readily admit he does have a bigger role than some HC's in the Triad we have, but I won't agree that he does this stuff all on his own.

Again, go back to Kevons post.
As with some on here, he puts that stuff in there just so I have to go through this long disseration again.

kevons post.

Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas
my question.

a. Do you think the Chiller has the lattitude to fire someone on his own or do you think a plethera of FO pukes have to also participate in that (ala legal, contracting, PR, VP of Player Personell etc etc etc)?

Which do you believe is more accurate and how it happened?

kevons post.

and still has Ryan Cook starting
my post.

b. Who is a better starter on the roster right now?
Seems to me the FO hasn't given him many options of late or is there a guy on the roster I am missing.

Which do you believe is more accurate?

ejmat
01-07-2009, 11:07 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:











In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their jiggly butt out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.


i agree, esp. since they had one last year... but along with the QB, i think they all had some issues in the clock management stand point in the 2 min drill...

I was wondering why they weren't in hurry up mode as well, most of the 4th quarter against Philly... (they weren't against ATL), but then I remembered, you have to complete a pass to be in hurry up!!.. LOL!!! oh, well, that's why we dont' have a 2 min drill!!!


Good point.
When you don't complete passes you get to huddle without worrying about time
;D

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 11:11 AM
It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 11:15 AM
"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.
If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D

ejmat
01-07-2009, 11:17 AM
"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


All this guy did is take examples that fans on line have typed.
No one knows why they "look" like they look or why decisions are made.
For all we know it may have been continued problems with the equipment.
I was as mad as anyone during this game but all that statement does is make an assumption.
Not fact to prove a point.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 11:18 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


You're talking about one game...

I'm looking at the bigger picture. The Giants game? That horrible challenge? Clock (mis)management? Have you seen our 2-minute drills?

These are ongoing problems and people notice this... hence articles like this.


I mean, show us an article that backs-up your stance on our coaches.

seaniemck7
01-07-2009, 11:18 AM
"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


A perfect example of this was early in the playoff game where they got a play FINALLY called in to TJ, and he literally had 7 seconds to get out of the huddle and snap the play.
All you TJ bashers, how the fuck to you make presnap reads when you have ZERO time at the line??


Again, The problem lies in the fact that Chilly will not get his nose out of the offense and let someone else run it.
We have too many cooks in the offensive kitchen.

ejmat
01-07-2009, 11:20 AM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


A perfect example of this was early in the playoff game where they got a play FINALLY called in to TJ, and he literally had 7 seconds to get out of the huddle and snap the play.
All you TJ bashers, how the fuck to you make presnap reads when you have ZERO time at the line??


Again, The problem lies in the fact that Chilly will not get his nose out of the offense and let someone else run it.
We have too many cooks in the offensive kitchen.


You made a great point then blamed Childress for no reason.
There was a problem with the radio equipment to where TJ wasn't able to hear.
That is why he only had 7 seconds to read and make adjustments.
Not because of CHildress.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 11:20 AM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


A perfect example of this was early in the playoff game where they got a play FINALLY called in to TJ, and he literally had 7 seconds to get out of the huddle and snap the play.
All you TJ bashers, how the fuck to you make presnap reads when you have ZERO time at the line??


Again, The problem lies in the fact that Chilly will not get his nose out of the offense and let someone else run it.
We have too many cooks in the offensive kitchen.


How many cooks does it take to make ramen noodles?

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 11:25 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


You're talking about one game...

I'm looking at the bigger picture. The Giants game? That horrible challenge? Clock (mis)management? Have you seen our 2-minute drills?

These are ongoing problems and people notice this... hence articles like this.


I mean, show us an article that backs-up your stance on our coaches.

Nope, I only chose to use one game.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 11:25 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


A perfect example of this was early in the playoff game where they got a play FINALLY called in to TJ, and he literally had 7 seconds to get out of the huddle and snap the play.
All you TJ bashers, how the fuck to you make presnap reads when you have ZERO time at the line??


Again, The problem lies in the fact that Chilly will not get his nose out of the offense and let someone else run it.
We have too many cooks in the offensive kitchen.


You made a great point then blamed Childress for no reason.
There was a problem with the radio equipment to where TJ wasn't able to hear.
That is why he only had 7 seconds to read and make adjustments.
Not because of CHildress.


No, I think you're thinking of when Leber's headset wasn't working... that wasn't an offensive play.

jargomcfargo
01-07-2009, 11:34 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.

Zeus
01-07-2009, 11:42 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fucking burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 1st defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.

=Z=
EDIT:
It was the 1st defensive TO, now that I look at the play-by-play....

Prophet
01-07-2009, 11:44 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fucking burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.

=Z=


That makes too much sense.

Zeus
01-07-2009, 11:44 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36


=Z=

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 11:45 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fricken burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.

=Z=

Your assumptions and mine differ.

One time we weren't even lined up and the offense was at the line.
Mr. Green dot was yelling for the play, or at least (my assumption) looking that way with his arms straight out and his palms pointed to the sky.


Again, my assumption but it appeared he was saying WTFITP.

NordicNed
01-07-2009, 11:47 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fucking burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.

=Z=




The first of the two mentioned timeouts was due to equipment failure...Lieber's headset was not working.
The second, I think you hit on the head, Lieber noticed something that led him to believe that we where going to get burnt on the next snap, so he pulled the plug on the called D.
Thats his job, and I think at that time, a good job he did.....

Zeus
01-07-2009, 11:48 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fricken burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.


Your assumptions and mine differ.

One time we weren't even lined up and the offense was at the line.

Mr. Green dot was yelling for the play, or at least (my assumption) looking that way with his arms straight out and his palms pointed to the sky.



Again, my assumption but it appeared he was saying WTFITP.


Yes - you assume you have a clue.
I assume that you don't have a clue, since I know I don't.

The one time they weren't lined up (if a TO was called on that play) was because PHILLY was late getting the play-call in and until they put their personnel on the field, the defense cannot counter with their personnel.
That was the TO situation to which I referred in my post above (1st TO, not 2nd).


=Z=

Mr Anderson
01-07-2009, 11:49 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:











In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their ass out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so retarded that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.


I'd like to point out that the Vikings were in a "hurry-up" or "2-minute" offense when Birk hiked the ball before Tarvaris was ready and the final turnover happened on Sunday.
And that Birk hiked the ball too early comes from BIRK DIRECTLY AFTER THE GAME ON KFAN, before some douche jumps on Tarvaris.

=Z=

Jackson needs to be able to catch with his feet. Or at the very least kick it up to himself to catch it on that play.

Sometimes I watch him and think "Is this his first time playing QB?"

Prophet
01-07-2009, 11:51 AM
"Mr" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:













In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their ass out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so retarded that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.


I'd like to point out that the Vikings were in a "hurry-up" or "2-minute" offense when Birk hiked the ball before Tarvaris was ready and the final turnover happened on Sunday.
And that Birk hiked the ball too early comes from BIRK DIRECTLY AFTER THE GAME ON KFAN, before some douche jumps on Tarvaris.

=Z=

Jackson needs to be able to catch with his feet. Or at the very least kick it up to himself to catch it on that play.

Sometimes I watch him and think "Is this his first time playing QB?"


They have been playing with a laxidaisical approach when there's a time crunch, and, yes, Tarvaris should be able to hackey sack the bad snap to his hands.

NordicNed
01-07-2009, 11:54 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:















In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.

You have. It calls for every player to grab their own necks and squeeze.


LMAO!!!!


lol, seriously though, why don't they have a hurry-up offense?
I've heard reasons like TJack can't handle it, etc.
I don't buy it.
If you gave me millions of dollars to play a game and told me that I had to be ready tomorrow to run a 2 min. drill I would be prepared the next day.

Read the Thread's title and the answer will magically come to you.
A better question would, Why do we have a coach that fired someone on Xmas, calls timeouts to determine if we should waste a time out on a replay or not and still has Ryan Cook starting?



The xmas firing is funny, it happened after xmas.
It really has nothing to do with anything, if you're going to fire somebody you don't hold their hand and stroke them, you kick their ass out and replace them.
Childress made many good challenges and calls throughout the season, you choose not to remember those.
Cook is young and may pan out.

My question stands, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have to have a 2 min. drill.
Why don't they?
It obviously is related to the coaches, do you honestly believe that the coaching staff is so retarded that they have never practiced a 2 min. drill?
We ran those in high school.
If TJack cannot handle running a 2 min. drill then I seriously doubt he will ever have the mental capacity to run a team and integrate the things he has learned over the years to become a legitimate starter in the NFL.
I truly find it hard to believe that a coaching staff forgot about the 2 min drill, come on.


I'd like to point out that the Vikings were in a "hurry-up" or "2-minute" offense when Birk hiked the ball before Tarvaris was ready and the final turnover happened on Sunday.
And that Birk hiked the ball too early comes from BIRK DIRECTLY AFTER THE GAME ON KFAN, before some douche jumps on Tarvaris.

=Z=

Jackson needs to be able to catch with his feet. Or at the very least kick it up to himself to catch it on that play.

Sometimes I watch him and think "Is this his first time playing QB?"


They have been playing with a laxidaisical approach when there's a time crunch, and, yes, Tarvaris should be able to hackey sack the bad snap to his hands.



To hell with all that.
I feel TJ should have been able to clutch the ball in between his feet, go into a hand stand, and kick a bomb to BB for the Score....... ;D

ejmat
01-07-2009, 11:55 AM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


A perfect example of this was early in the playoff game where they got a play FINALLY called in to TJ, and he literally had 7 seconds to get out of the huddle and snap the play.
All you TJ bashers, how the fuck to you make presnap reads when you have ZERO time at the line??


Again, The problem lies in the fact that Chilly will not get his nose out of the offense and let someone else run it.
We have too many cooks in the offensive kitchen.


You made a great point then blamed Childress for no reason.
There was a problem with the radio equipment to where TJ wasn't able to hear.
That is why he only had 7 seconds to read and make adjustments.
Not because of CHildress.


No, I think you're thinking of when Leber's headset wasn't working... that wasn't an offensive play.


Actually it happened
to TJ too.
That was an offensive play.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 11:59 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fricken burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.


Your assumptions and mine differ.

One time we weren't even lined up and the offense was at the line.

Mr. Green dot was yelling for the play, or at least (my assumption) looking that way with his arms straight out and his palms pointed to the sky.



Again, my assumption but it appeared he was saying WTFITP.


Yes - you assume you have a clue.
I assume that you don't have a clue, since I know I don't.

The one time they weren't lined up (if a TO was called on that play) was because PHILLY was late getting the play-call in and until they put their personnel on the field, the defense cannot counter with their personnel.
That was the TO situation to which I referred in my post above (1st TO, not 2nd).


=Z=

Wait a minute..... First you say you know you don't have a clue and then you come with some info trying to convince me you were right.

I'm confused.....Probably cause I don't have a clue right. ::)

kevoncox
01-07-2009, 12:06 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


You don't need a 2 minute drill when you have a KAO. I'm still waiting for it to kick in.


There is no Kick in it. It's just an A** offense

kevoncox
01-07-2009, 12:11 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


A perfect example of this was early in the playoff game where they got a play FINALLY called in to TJ, and he literally had 7 seconds to get out of the huddle and snap the play.
All you TJ bashers, how the floop to you make presnap reads when you have ZERO time at the line??


Again, The problem lies in the fact that Chilly will not get his nose out of the offense and let someone else run it.
We have too many cooks in the offensive kitchen.


How many cooks does it take to make ramen noodles?


Only One to hold the pot at the worst possible time.

mountainviking
01-07-2009, 12:17 PM
Couple of good quotes to sum it up in that first article...


But when the offense is on the field, it seems Childress and his coaches are debating decisions at critical moments. They exhibit clock-management problems, most noticeably at the end of the New York Giants game but also at other times, such as the end of the first half against the Eagles. Are these signs of bigger problems?

Perhaps that stubbornness is the downfall of Childress. Stubborn can be good when you have a vision that you want to see through, yet are open-minded enough to let up when your decisions aren’t working. It can be bad if you continue to do it your way just because you’re the boss.



Lack of Clock management, very weak 2 min drill, minimal in game adjustments, predictable playcalling, and the old square peg in the round hole all point to that stubborness IMHO.
Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

On the other hand, Chiller has improved his challenge outcome percentage and his team's win total each year.
He has surprised me with occaisional bursts of good plays...screens, slants, and more than 2 WR sets have made appearances...I even saw AP lineup as a WR/distraction!
This year's QBs, Jackson and Gus, looked better than any other year in the KAO.
Berrian had more yards recieving than any MN WR has since Chiller took over, and, Shank had more TDs at TE than we've seen in many many years.
AP led the league in rushing yards, and though, much of that is on his own god-given ability, some credit does belong to the OL and the coaches/playcalling.
Hey AP, thanks for all the effort!!
But, simmer on this a bit:
Every fumble takes away from your yards and TDs too!
Clean up the fumbles and those extra 250 yards to top 2000 might be in your back pocket.
;)

So, Wilf has decided (likely 3 years ago) that he will keep Childress for a fourth year.
I have accepted that, and I am OK with it, though I am a bit bummed that Shanahan most likely won't be available next year.
But, I do have a bit of optimism going forward.
Mainly, that our schemes are going into their fourth years, nearly all our players will be returning, with experience in the systems...In Theory, this general experience and familiarity should lead to more flex in the playcalling, FA moves, and draft...and likely, a better chance of those pegs fitting in their holes and the holes fitting their pegs.

With just a couple of personel upgrades, mostly depth/rotation positions (and returns to health of several important players!), this team is built to win.
That said, unless Wilf is certain there is more to the playbook that is going to open up, I suggest hiring some sort of "Offensive Consultant/Quality Control" type of coach to spend some time going through the KAO and offer some suggestions to make it more efficient...maybe, there is so much in it that the volume itself hinders what the team knows/understands and can execute confidently...and thus we see much repetition from a huge playbook.
Depending on how the work relationship goes, maybe this guy would stick around for the season and help answer the bold question above, who calls the offensive shots.


SKOL VIKES!!!
HERE'S TO A SUCCESSFUL OFF SEASON!!!

mountainviking
01-07-2009, 12:31 PM
LOL!!
;D
Seriously, I'm actually enjoying both sides of this coin
;) Check out this Packer fan's rant...


After the game, Childress said he wanted to keep as many blockers as he could for Jackson, using the running backs as blockers. For years, the Eagles have gotten to QBs with Jim Johnson's blitzes. Jim Johnson has seen every blocking protection or blocking scheme known to man in those years.

The question was never whether or not the Vikings could keep the Eagles away from Jackson. They were never going to do that. The only question was how many safety valves Jackson would have.

The answer was none—and we saw what kind of game Jackson had. If you have to run screen passes to the running backs or just dump off the ball to the running back in the flat 30 times in a row until the Eagles quit blitzing, that's what you do.

But not Brad Childress...


There has been one constant with the Vikings under Brad Childress. Whenever they win a big game, or a game they are not supposed to win, they will lay an egg the next week. The Vikings can play with any team in the league—they just choose not to.

And it all starts with the coach.

If you ask this Packer fan, Brad Childress is doing a hell of a job and should get a lifetime extension. Now.




http://bleacherreport.com/articles/107364-keep-brad-childress-a-packers-fans-memo-to-zygi-wilf

jargomcfargo
01-07-2009, 12:39 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36


=Z=

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 12:41 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12

jargomcfargo
01-07-2009, 12:42 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36


=Z=


Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 12:48 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


nfl.com/stats

Offense: 16th in penalty yds and 17th in penalties
Defense: 1st in penalty yds and 5th in penalties

ejmat
01-07-2009, 12:50 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


nfl.com/stats

Offense: 16th in penalty yds and 17th in penalties
Defense: 1st in penalty yds and 5th in penalties




I will say the last couple of games they hardly had any penalties.
That was nice to see.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 12:51 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


nfl.com/stats

Offense: 16th in penalty yds and 17th in penalties
Defense: 1st in penalty yds and 5th in penalties



Thanks Proph.
Not sure why that keeps coming up.

Zeus
01-07-2009, 01:15 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36



Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.


McCauley's a waste of carbon.
Come back soon Chuck!

=Z=

Zeus
01-07-2009, 01:20 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:





It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fricken burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.


Your assumptions and mine differ.

One time we weren't even lined up and the offense was at the line.

Mr. Green dot was yelling for the play, or at least (my assumption) looking that way with his arms straight out and his palms pointed to the sky.



Again, my assumption but it appeared he was saying WTFITP.


Yes - you assume you have a clue.
I assume that you don't have a clue, since I know I don't.

The one time they weren't lined up (if a TO was called on that play) was because PHILLY was late getting the play-call in and until they put their personnel on the field, the defense cannot counter with their personnel.
That was the TO situation to which I referred in my post above (1st TO, not 2nd).



Wait a minute..... First you say you know you don't have a clue and then you come with some info trying to convince me you were right.

I'm confused.....Probably cause I don't have a clue right. ::)


You said - definitively - that Frazier was late making the play-call, as if you had a clue, and then you point to a specific situation in the game.
I recall that exact situation and I also recall Philadelphia being late getting their personnel on the field.
I cannot say whether or not the play-call was given before the final 15 seconds of the play-clock kicked in (which, as we all should remember, is when the radios stop working), but I can say that Philadelphia was rushing players on and off and the Vikings were countering.
Donovan was rushed, the clock was down to 6 seconds and Leber called a timeout.
That's all stuff that everyone could have seen.

I choose not to assume that Frazier did something wrong, as you are choosing to assume.
I choose to assume that Leber was doing his job on a play when there was confusion on BOTH sidelines.

I still know that I have no clue about what plays or called or when they are called because I have neither the play-book nor a headset.

=Z=

V-Unit
01-07-2009, 01:28 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


Leber's radio wasn't working the first time, and the second time we didn't like their formation...

V-Unit
01-07-2009, 01:45 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


Is this a joke?

1. I'll take nfl.com's stats over teamrankings.com's stats when it comes to legitimacy any day.
2. This list is offensive penalties only. NFL. com has similar rankings if you look at the offensive penalties page.
3. This list ignores the 109 defensive penalties that the D has committed.
4. 109 + 90 = 199 -> 199 / 16 = 12 penalties per game. Regardless of rank, that is WAY too many.
5. If you look up our actual penalty rating, I would guess were are top 10. Why did I not look it up? See#4.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 01:46 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:







It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.


I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


There were 2 defensive timeouts in the first half.
When I see defensive timeouts, I don't immediately think "Leslie was late making the call", because I tend not to assume that highly-paid professionals don't have a clue.
I also tend not to assume that I know what the hell is going on from my seat in the upper-deck.

My assumption when I see a late defensive timeout is that the defense recognized they were going to get fricken burned because of the coverage called and what it looks like the offense is going to do.
The 2nd defensive timeout, for example, happened with the play-clock ticking down and made me scratch my head since it appeared that Philly *might* get a delay-of-game on that call.
But the frantic way that Leber was making the timeout call led me to believe then (and now) that he saw something that was about to go horribly wrong and called the TO to fix that.


Your assumptions and mine differ.

One time we weren't even lined up and the offense was at the line.

Mr. Green dot was yelling for the play, or at least (my assumption) looking that way with his arms straight out and his palms pointed to the sky.



Again, my assumption but it appeared he was saying WTFITP.


Yes - you assume you have a clue.
I assume that you don't have a clue, since I know I don't.

The one time they weren't lined up (if a TO was called on that play) was because PHILLY was late getting the play-call in and until they put their personnel on the field, the defense cannot counter with their personnel.
That was the TO situation to which I referred in my post above (1st TO, not 2nd).



Wait a minute..... First you say you know you don't have a clue and then you come with some info trying to convince me you were right.

I'm confused.....Probably cause I don't have a clue right. ::)


You said - definitively - that Frazier was late making the play-call, as if you had a clue, and then you point to a specific situation in the game.
I recall that exact situation and I also recall Philadelphia being late getting their personnel on the field.
I cannot say whether or not the play-call was given before the final 15 seconds of the play-clock kicked in (which, as we all should remember, is when the radios stop working), but I can say that Philadelphia was rushing players on and off and the Vikings were countering.
Donovan was rushed, the clock was down to 6 seconds and Leber called a timeout.
That's all stuff that everyone could have seen.

I choose not to assume that Frazier did something wrong, as you are choosing to assume.
I choose to assume that Leber was doing his job on a play when there was confusion on BOTH sidelines.

I still know that I have no clue about what plays or called or when they are called because I have neither the play-book nor a headset.

=Z=

So we are back were we started......

By the way, did you see the stats I posted in another thread that showed this defense got worse and not better in several key statistical catagories under his leadership this year?

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 01:48 PM
"V" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


Is this a joke?

1. I'll take nfl.com's stats over teamrankings.com's stats when it comes to legitimacy any day.
2. This list is offensive penalties only. NFL. com has similar rankings if you look at the offensive penalties page.
3. This list ignores the 109 defensive penalties that the D has committed.
4. 109 + 90 = 199 -> 199 / 16 = 12 penalties per game. Regardless of rank, that is WAY too many.
5. If you look up our actual penalty rating, I would guess were are top 10. Why did I not look it up? See#4.


A joke huh.
Seems they have us at 17 just like nfl.com.
Guess nfl.com is a joke as well.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 01:49 PM
"V" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:



It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


Leber's radio wasn't working the first time, and the second time we didn't like their formation...

Just more ammo then.
Fire his ass.

mountainviking
01-07-2009, 01:49 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


nfl.com/stats

Offense: 16th in penalty yds and 17th in penalties
Defense: 1st in penalty yds and 5th in penalties

From nfl.com/stats/team

pages...

16th with 90 penalties on offense for 692 yards
tied for 4th with 109 penalties on defense for 1,002
yards

Total 199 penalties for 1694 yards, plus STs?
Not good.
Fact remains, at one point this season, we led the league.
True, some late season improvement in that department....also, looks like that other page is including the playoff games (10-7 is our record)...where we did quite well, only 4 for 25 as I recall.



So...nobody else thinks the KAO could use some trimming and slimming for efficiency...the idea being less plays to study = more actually available, with confidence, on field...?????

V-Unit
01-07-2009, 01:51 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


Is this a joke?

1. I'll take nfl.com's stats over teamrankings.com's stats when it comes to legitimacy any day.
2. This list is offensive penalties only. NFL. com has similar rankings if you look at the offensive penalties page.
3. This list ignores the 109 defensive penalties that the D has committed.
4. 109 + 90 = 199 -> 199 / 16 = 12 penalties per game. Regardless of rank, that is WAY too many.
5. If you look up our actual penalty rating, I would guess were are top 10. Why did I not look it up? See#4.


A joke huh.
Seems they have us at 17 just like nfl.com.

Guess nfl.com is a joke as well.


I thought you were trying to trick us with bogus stats. I mean, why else would you go to a site like teamrankings.com and post offense only numbers?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Funny how every other person went to nfl.com to check those numbers.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 02:01 PM
"V" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


Is this a joke?

1. I'll take nfl.com's stats over teamrankings.com's stats when it comes to legitimacy any day.
2. This list is offensive penalties only. NFL. com has similar rankings if you look at the offensive penalties page.
3. This list ignores the 109 defensive penalties that the D has committed.
4. 109 + 90 = 199 -> 199 / 16 = 12 penalties per game. Regardless of rank, that is WAY too many.
5. If you look up our actual penalty rating, I would guess were are top 10. Why did I not look it up? See#4.


A joke huh.
Seems they have us at 17 just like nfl.com.

Guess nfl.com is a joke as well.


I thought you were trying to trick us with bogus stats. I mean, why else would you go to a site like teamrankings.com and post offense only numbers?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Funny how every other person went to nfl.com to check those numbers.

You did see were I asked if someone had another link to make sure my stat page was right?
;D

Seriously, I am using that link, along with some others for a post I am working on.
That was just the first one I pulled up out of the document that listed multiple year rankings.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 02:10 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Leading the league in penalties isn't particularly glamorous for the coaches either...

Nothing much to discuss in that post, however, didn't we kindof put this to bed as a myth or something that isn't true?

Anyone got a link to a different stat page than I have?

This one shows Dallas as the most penalized and the Vikes 17th and getting better.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=12


nfl.com/stats

Offense: 16th in penalty yds and 17th in penalties
Defense: 1st in penalty yds and 5th in penalties

From nfl.com/stats/team

pages...

16th with 90 penalties on offense for 692 yards
tied for 4th with 109 penalties on defense for 1,002
yards

Total 199 penalties for 1694 yards, plus STs?
Not good.
Fact remains, at one point this season, we led the league.
True, some late season improvement in that department....also, looks like that other page is including the playoff games (10-7 is our record)...where we did quite well, only 4 for 25 as I recall.



So...nobody else thinks the KAO could use some trimming and slimming for efficiency...the idea being less plays to study = more actually available, with confidence, on field...?????


I got the following summary from nfl.com/stats:

1st in penalty yds on defense (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PENALTIES_YARDS_PENALIZED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) with 1,002 yds, the next closest team was the 9ers with 869.
The defense was tied for 4th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PENALTIES_TOTAL&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) in the # of penalties with 109 penalties.
The team with the least amount of defensive penalties was the Colts with 68.

Offense rang in with 692 penalty yds (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PENALTIES_YARDS_PENALIZED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) in 16th place.
The committed 90 penalties (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PENALTIES_TOTAL&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1), putting them in 17th place, right behind the Lions.

So, between the O and D they had 199 penalties for a total of 1,694 yds.
That is the length of 17 football fields.
Some serious penalty issues.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 02:12 PM
I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 02:40 PM
"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 02:42 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.



You get me all excited when you post stats like that.
;D

Prophet
01-07-2009, 02:45 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.



You get me all excited when you post stats like that.

;D


I better stop, last thing I need is wildwoman coming after me with a nuclear RPG.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 02:45 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.




Terrific?

I have posted about penalties, play calls, challenges... etc... you only choose to remember "Fire Childress" because it is my battle cry.

Those are all great stats too... I know teams that lose only 87% of their games by a score or less are the ones that go down in history, not those stupid teams that win Super Bowls.


As long as they keep the games close, they must be good coaches?

Prophet
01-07-2009, 02:50 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.




Terrific?

I have posted about penalties, play calls, challenges... etc... you only choose to remember "Fire Childress" because it is my battle cry.

Those are all great stats too... I know teams that lose only 87% of their games by a score or less are the ones that go down in history, not those stupid teams that win Super Bowls.


As long as they keep the games close, they must be good coaches?


I knew that would work.

I am all for improvement.
People get all over my case when I say that anything less than a SB win is unacceptable.
I would rather have a 0-16 season if it means we will be on the right track.
Where we disagree, and many on this site, is whether or not the Vikings are on the right track.

I see the team being built at its foundation.
There are plenty of kinks to work out and I think they are putting together a legitimate effort to do that.
I wouldn't cry for a second if Childress was canned, but, he's not going to be.
I'm not happy about Frazier leaving, because I am more of a defense crotch sniffer and I believe in consistency.


Bottom-line, I believe the team is on the right track.
Many don't.

ejmat
01-07-2009, 02:52 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.




Terrific?

I have posted about penalties, play calls, challenges... etc... you only choose to remember "Fire Childress" because it is my battle cry.

Those are all great stats too... I know teams that lose only 87% of their games by a score or less are the ones that go down in history, not those stupid teams that win Super Bowls.


As long as they keep the games close, they must be good coaches?


The issue is your expectations are ridiculous.
Of course all of us want the Vikings to win a superbowl.
The problem is 1 of 32 teams do it every year.
We have had good coaches and bad coaches.
How many coaches have we won a superbowl with?
None!
There are a lot of great coaches that don't win the superbowl.
Schotty to name one.
He never got there.

What you keep failing to understand is there are many variables in a season.
Is Childress and staff the best coaching staff around?
No.
But they are not as bad as you or anyone else thinks.
He has steadily improved which is what the real expectations should have been when he began rebuilding the team.
Now that we are there and contending next year would be a much better year to assess how he is as a coach.

mountainviking
01-07-2009, 03:11 PM
Very true and very good point...he has managed to keep games close...we've had a chance to win nearly every game during his tenure.
Like you said, a few penalties cleaner game would be the difference in many.
But, so could better clock management to end halves and games...and by that I mean, better execution by the players (esp. offense) and the coaches/playcalling.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 03:12 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.




Terrific?

I have posted about penalties, play calls, challenges... etc... you only choose to remember "Fire Childress" because it is my battle cry.

Those are all great stats too... I know teams that lose only 87% of their games by a score or less are the ones that go down in history, not those stupid teams that win Super Bowls.


As long as they keep the games close, they must be good coaches?


The issue is your expectations are ridiculous.
Of course all of us want the Vikings to win a superbowl.
The problem is 1 of 32 teams do it every year.
We have had good coaches and bad coaches.
How many coaches have we won a superbowl with?
None!
There are a lot of great coaches that don't win the superbowl.
Schotty to name one.
He never got there.

What you keep failing to understand is there are many variables in a season.
Is Childress and staff the best coaching staff around?
No.
But they are not as bad as you or anyone else thinks.
He has steadily improved which is what the real expectations should have been when he began rebuilding the team.
Now that we are there and contending next year would be a much better year to assess how he is as a coach.


I agree give him another year... i don't think he's a great coach, but just average... as i think our team is underachieving.. but with that said.. his ASS definitely needs to be on the HOT SEAT!!!

Prophet
01-07-2009, 03:15 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


....I agree give him another year... i don't think he's a great coach, but just average... as i think our team is underachieving.. but with that said.. his ASS definitely needs to be on the HOT SEAT!!!


Just about every NFL and college level coach has his ass on the hotseat every year.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 03:17 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.




Terrific?

I have posted about penalties, play calls, challenges... etc... you only choose to remember "Fire Childress" because it is my battle cry.

Those are all great stats too... I know teams that lose only 87% of their games by a score or less are the ones that go down in history, not those stupid teams that win Super Bowls.


As long as they keep the games close, they must be good coaches?


The issue is your expectations are ridiculous.
Of course all of us want the Vikings to win a superbowl.
The problem is 1 of 32 teams do it every year.
We have had good coaches and bad coaches.
How many coaches have we won a superbowl with?
None!
There are a lot of great coaches that don't win the superbowl.
Schotty to name one.
He never got there.

What you keep failing to understand is there are many variables in a season.
Is Childress and staff the best coaching staff around?
No.
But they are not as bad as you or anyone else thinks.
He has steadily improved which is what the real expectations should have been when he began rebuilding the team.
Now that we are there and contending next year would be a much better year to assess how he is as a coach.


I agree give him another year... i don't think he's a great coach, but just average... as i think our team is underachieving.. but with that said.. his jiggly butt definitely needs to be on the HOT SEAT!!!

I listened to a radio announcer take a call from a Vikings fan who basically said that Wilf should fire Childress this year.


The announcer and his partner, basically chuckled and said something along the lines of .........

"Only MN fans would want to fire a HC who just got his team into the playoffs after winning the Div".

mark
01-07-2009, 03:18 PM
Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

i_bleed_purple
01-07-2009, 03:25 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I feel like I've been talking to a wall all year long.


2006 (games lost)
lost by 3
lost by 5
lost by 24
lost by 6
lost by 6
lost by 4
lost by 10
lost by 13
lost by 2
lost by 20

Of the losses, 60% were by a score or less.


2007 (games lost)

lost by 3
lost by 3
lost by 7
lost by 10
lost by 7
lost by 34
lost by 11
lost by 3

of the losses, 50% were by a score or less.

2008 (games lost)

lost by 5
lost by 3
lost by 13
lost by 7
lost by 6
lost by 7

of the losses, 83% were by a score or less.

So, 67% of the losses during Frazier's tenure were by a score or less.
The D is giving them a chance to win.
This year almost every loss was by one score.
I would say that the defense is doing their job.
Room for improvement?
Being the #1 penalized team on D doesn't help, but, the were still ranked 13th (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1) in pts given up at 333 total with the Steelers leading the pack with 223 pts and Detroit in last with 517 pts.

The offense 12th with 379 pts (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1) produced with the Saints #1 at 463 pts for the season.

Imagine only improving on penalties.
Many of those close games would have been Ws.


It is in the players execution.
You continually making comments that you have been been talking to a wall is ridiculous.
It's hard to argue with comments like, "Fire Childress".
It is a strong argument though.



You get me all excited when you post stats like that.

;D


you'll notice the percentages go up, and the number of losses go down... couldn't be coaching that is doing that..

mountainviking
01-07-2009, 03:25 PM
So here we are, 4th year coming up...in the systems, with the office managing, the coaches calling and the players playing in the KAO.
Last year on Chiller's contract.
I guess its make or break time, No?

10-6 and plenty of player potential, I'm looking forward to next year!!


Just about every NFL and college level coach has his jiggly butt on the hotseat every year.

True.
"What have You done for Me lately?"
;)

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 03:27 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


I listened to a radio announcer take a call from a Vikings fan who basically said that Wilf should fire Childress this year.


The announcer and his partner, basically chuckled and said something along the lines of .........

"Only MN fans would want to fire a HC who just got his team into the playoffs after winning the Div".


Well... next year, when GB actually plays up to their potential... and Detroit isn't 0-16, maybe we will see how good this coaching staff really is.

I've seen a lot of people say "We're improving"... but no one has pointed out the obvious fact that the rest of our division took a big step backwards this season.

We may have won our division, but it doesn't matter. This coaching staff can be given as many years as they want, but they'll never win a championship.

All you people saying "Only 1/32 teams make it... boo hoo... your expectations are too high..." Just shut up. Your mentality and acceptance of losing is making me sick.

ejmat
01-07-2009, 03:31 PM
"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.


Another one with a crystal ball.
I need to get myself one of these.
Maybe I'll win the lottery.

Zeus
01-07-2009, 03:32 PM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


I listened to a radio announcer take a call from a Vikings fan who basically said that Wilf should fire Childress this year.


The announcer and his partner, basically chuckled and said something along the lines of .........

"Only MN fans would want to fire a HC who just got his team into the playoffs after winning the Div".


Well... next year, when GB actually plays up to their potential... and Detroit isn't 0-16, maybe we will see how good this coaching staff really is.

I've seen a lot of people say "We're improving"... but no one has pointed out the obvious fact that the rest of our division took a big step backwards this season.

We may have won our division, but it doesn't matter. This coaching staff can be given as many years as they want, but they'll never win a championship.

All you people saying "Only 1/32 teams make it... boo hoo... your expectations are too high..." Just shut up. Your mentality and acceptance of losing is making me sick.


And your absolute refusal to look at any of this with any positivity is beyond sickening.

The Vikings won 10 games and a Division Championship, but they might as well have been 0-16 like the Lions (or 1-15 where we split with them) to listen to you and your ilk.

=Z=

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 03:33 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


I listened to a radio announcer take a call from a Vikings fan who basically said that Wilf should fire Childress this year.


The announcer and his partner, basically chuckled and said something along the lines of .........

"Only MN fans would want to fire a HC who just got his team into the playoffs after winning the Div".


Well... next year, when GB actually plays up to their potential... and Detroit isn't 0-16, maybe we will see how good this coaching staff really is.

I've seen a lot of people say "We're improving"... but no one has pointed out the obvious fact that the rest of our division took a big step backwards this season.

We may have won our division, but it doesn't matter. This coaching staff can be given as many years as they want, but they'll never win a championship.

All you people saying "Only 1/32 teams make it... boo hoo... your expectations are too high..." Just shut up. Your mentality and acceptance of losing is making me sick.


And your absolute refusal to look at any of this with any positivity is beyond sickening.

The Vikings won 10 games and a Division Championship, but they might as well have been 0-16 like the Lions (or 1-15 where we split with them) to listen to you and your ilk.

=Z=


And your mentality is that the only two options are: 1-15... or 10-6 with a first round playoff loss.


That's the exact problem I'm talking about. This fan base has just come to accept losing.

Give Childress another year.

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 03:38 PM
"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.
;D

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 03:41 PM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


I listened to a radio announcer take a call from a Vikings fan who basically said that Wilf should fire Childress this year.


The announcer and his partner, basically chuckled and said something along the lines of .........

"Only MN fans would want to fire a HC who just got his team into the playoffs after winning the Div".


Well... next year, when GB actually plays up to their potential... and Detroit isn't 0-16, maybe we will see how good this coaching staff really is.

I've seen a lot of people say "We're improving"... but no one has pointed out the obvious fact that the rest of our division took a big step backwards this season.

We may have won our division, but it doesn't matter. This coaching staff can be given as many years as they want, but they'll never win a championship.

All you people saying "Only 1/32 teams make it... boo hoo... your expectations are too high..." Just shut up. Your mentality and acceptance of losing is making me sick.

We did play weak divisional games, however, we also played a hell of a lot of "Non Divisional" games against contending teams.

By the way, did you happen to notice that the Bores were in contention for a Wildcard slot up until the last week of the season?

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 03:41 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...

Marrdro
01-07-2009, 03:45 PM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...

So you completely ignore the games out of the division as well as the fact that even though we do have a weak division the bores were good enough (almost) to make the playoffs.

Additionally, I do like the first win against the PUKERS.
It means we beat them, finally.
Bet it happens alot more in the future.


What is a bit funny is that you think my points are hilarious but can't give me anything to convince me they are other than you say they are.......

All I'm saying.... ;D

Prophet
01-07-2009, 03:45 PM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.

fourdoorchevelle
01-07-2009, 03:50 PM
there is only 1 winner every year . and if that winner is not you than you should do what is necessary to be that 1 winner . being contempt to not be that 1 winner will earn you a spot in line at the umemployment office.

"hahhhh huck .... we arent the lions "

sounds like the raiders fans i live near

dont be blinded by being contempt . just because we made the playoffs doesnt mean that this season was a success. especially
by the way we play in high pressure games and in the second half of games

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 03:51 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



I guess we'll have to wait and see... but call me crazy when I say this coaching staff isn't taking us anywhere.


I'll be here to point that out, I'm sure.

Glad we beat all the division winners... including the Giant's 2nd string by 1 point. Where did that get us?

Oh... right....

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 03:52 PM
"fourdoorchevelle" wrote:


there is only 1 winner every year . and if that winner is not you than you should do what is necessary to be that 1 winner . being contempt to not be that 1 winner will earn you a spot in line at the umemployment office.

"hahhhh huck .... we arent the lions "

sounds like the raiders fans i live near

dont be blinded by being contempt . just because we made the playoffs doesnt mean that this season was a success. especially
by the way we play in high pressure games and in the second half of games


They accept losing... and I guess we just have to accept that.


"Shucks... we're getting better!"

Haha... hilarious.

ejmat
01-07-2009, 04:00 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



Also CMac you are pretty tough telling me to shut up behind your computer screen and that I am making you sick.
What's making you sick is your delusions of grandeur that you have because you think you are always right and can't take the fact there is more tangeables involved that your mind can't handle.

You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.
Played Tennessee tough.
Your mentality of win it all or don't win at all makes me sick and most other posters on this site.
At least I can back up my theories in which all you do (and it is highly documented) is spew negativity without hardly any basis behind it.
Then you twist things around and try to nit-pick things that mean absolutely nothing.
When you are called out to explain things you ALWAYS back down as Zeus and I have asked you to do on several occasions to try and prove us wrong.

Let me make things easy for you.
The Vikings have a 1 in 32 chance of winning the superbowl.
Since they may never live up to your expectations go find another team that will and stop spreading your negative upchuck around here.
I am not a violent person nor do I like to make threats.
But if you are going to tell me to shut up you better be able to back it up atleast verbally which you will never be able to do.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 04:25 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



Also CMac you are pretty tough telling me to shut up behind your computer screen and that I am making you sick.
What's making you sick is your delusions of grandeur that you have because you think you are always right and can't take the fact there is more tangeables involved that your mind can't handle.

You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.
Played Tennessee tough.
Your mentality of win it all or don't win at all makes me sick and most other posters on this site.
At least I can back up my theories in which all you do (and it is highly documented) is spew negativity without hardly any basis behind it.
Then you twist things around and try to nit-pick things that mean absolutely nothing.
When you are called out to explain things you ALWAYS back down as Zeus and I have asked you to do on several occasions to try and prove us wrong.

Let me make things easy for you.
The Vikings have a 1 in 32 chance of winning the superbowl.
Since they may never live up to your expectations go find another team that will and stop spreading your negative upchuck around here.
I am not a violent person nor do I like to make threats.
But if you are going to tell me to shut up you better be able to back it up atleast verbally which you will never be able to do.




I'm not trying to be tough... but it's just the same response. It's like you've accepted that we'll never be that 1/32 teams to win the SB. And you've said that before, hence why you're fine with a losing coach.

I get it.


"ejmat" wrote:


You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.

Carolina wasn't playing as good as they were towards the end of the season. Giants, yes... we beat their 2nd stringers. Congrats. Arizona, definitely a good win... but they won the weakest division in the NFL.

And as for almost beating Indy... who cares?


Try to prove you and Zeus wrong? How haven't I proven you wrong? We haven't won shit? You simply settle for mediocrity and probably have that ingrained into your head... I can't argue with that sort of apathy.

Some people hold things to a higher standard and expect more. Some people don't.

I'll let you figure out who is who.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 04:35 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



I guess we'll have to wait and see... but call me crazy when I say this coaching staff isn't taking us anywhere.


I'll be here to point that out, I'm sure.

Glad we beat all the division winners... including the Giant's 2nd string by 1 point. Where did that get us?

Oh... right....



Ignoring that we were ahead of them at the half against their starters.
How convenient.

Tony Dungy > Brad Childress

Peyton Manning > Tarvaris Jackson
12-4 > 10-6


Colts are watching the game at home after getting beat by the 8-8 chargers.
Dungy should be fired.


The NFL is all about parity these days.
Every year there is a new team and one of the most important people on the team, imo, is the cap manager and the Vikings have one of, if not the, best in the business.
They also have an owner that is willing to spend money. They have to tools to succeed.

It may or may not be the coaching staff.
If the team was still sitting at 6-10 with no signs of improvement Childress would be gone.
There are signs of improvement on the team and the bottom-line is they finished 10-6.
They have plenty of room for improvement and while we're sitting here pretending like we have a clue they are actually toiling over the roster, meeting with the scouts, and formulating a strategy to fill the gaps that they see from a coaches perspective that has dedicated their whole professional careers to the cause.
Childress will be on the hotseat again next year and the owner, who got rich by investing wisely, will decide again whether it's worth the coin to keep Childress wearing the purple.
This whole paragraph is worthless and stating the obvious.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 04:39 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



I guess we'll have to wait and see... but call me crazy when I say this coaching staff isn't taking us anywhere.


I'll be here to point that out, I'm sure.

Glad we beat all the division winners... including the Giant's 2nd string by 1 point. Where did that get us?

Oh... right....



Ignoring that we were ahead of them at the half against their starters.
How convenient.

Tony Dungy > Brad Childress

Peyton Manning > Tarvaris Jackson
12-4 > 10-6


Colts are watching the game at home after getting beat by the 8-8 chargers.
Dungy should be fired.


The NFL is all about parity these days.
Every year there is a new team and one of the most important people on the team, imo, is the cap manager and the Vikings have one of, if not the, best in the business.
They also have an owner that is willing to spend money. They have to tools to succeed.

It may or may not be the coaching staff.
If the team was still sitting at 6-10 with no signs of improvement Childress would be gone.
There are signs of improvement on the team and the bottom-line is they finished 10-6.
They have plenty of room for improvement and while we're sitting here pretending like we have a clue they are actually toiling over the roster, meeting with the scouts, and formulating a strategy to fill the gaps that they see from a coaches perspective that has dedicated their whole professional careers to the cause.
Childress will be on the hotseat again next year and the owner, who got rich by investing wisely, will decide again whether it's worth the coin to keep Childress wearing the purple.
This whole paragraph is worthless and stating the obvious.





Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 04:39 PM
"C" wrote:


....Carolina wasn't playing as good as they were towards the end of the season. Giants, yes... we beat their 2nd stringers. Congrats. Arizona, definitely a good win... but they won the weakest division in the NFL.
.....

Those arguments hold absolutely no water.
You don't think the Vikings were better at the end of the season after starting 0-2 and then beating the Panthers?
The Vikings also pulled off a hot streak at the end of the season.
The Giants starters were losing to the Vikings starters at the half, it's not that complicated.
You minimize the Cardinals win, yet they pounded on the Falcons in the playoffs.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 04:41 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



I guess we'll have to wait and see... but call me crazy when I say this coaching staff isn't taking us anywhere.


I'll be here to point that out, I'm sure.

Glad we beat all the division winners... including the Giant's 2nd string by 1 point. Where did that get us?

Oh... right....



Ignoring that we were ahead of them at the half against their starters.
How convenient.

Tony Dungy > Brad Childress

Peyton Manning > Tarvaris Jackson
12-4 > 10-6


Colts are watching the game at home after getting beat by the 8-8 chargers.
Dungy should be fired.


The NFL is all about parity these days.
Every year there is a new team and one of the most important people on the team, imo, is the cap manager and the Vikings have one of, if not the, best in the business.
They also have an owner that is willing to spend money. They have to tools to succeed.

It may or may not be the coaching staff.
If the team was still sitting at 6-10 with no signs of improvement Childress would be gone.
There are signs of improvement on the team and the bottom-line is they finished 10-6.
They have plenty of room for improvement and while we're sitting here pretending like we have a clue they are actually toiling over the roster, meeting with the scouts, and formulating a strategy to fill the gaps that they see from a coaches perspective that has dedicated their whole professional careers to the cause.
Childress will be on the hotseat again next year and the owner, who got rich by investing wisely, will decide again whether it's worth the coin to keep Childress wearing the purple.
This whole paragraph is worthless and stating the obvious.





Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 04:41 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


....Carolina wasn't playing as good as they were towards the end of the season. Giants, yes... we beat their 2nd stringers. Congrats. Arizona, definitely a good win... but they won the weakest division in the NFL.
.....

Those arguments hold absolutely no water.
You don't think the Vikings were better at the end of the season after starting 0-2 and then beating the Panthers?
The Vikings also pulled off a hot streak at the end of the season.
The Giants starters were losing to the Vikings starters at the half, it's not that complicated.
You minimize the the Cardinals win, yet they pounded on the Falcons in the playoffs.



That's fine... you win... they were all amazing wins over division winners.

Where did that get us?

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 04:42 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.


No, Dungy has proven he can take a team to the next level.

Childress hasn't proven anything.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 04:49 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.


No, Dungy has proven he can take a team to the next level.

Childress hasn't proven anything.


He has proven that he can build a team and that he can improve every year in the three years he has under his belt as HC.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder what Dungy's record (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/DungTo0.htm) is in his early years.
Let's take a gander at that:

1996: 6-10
1997: 10-6
1998: 8-8
(wow, looks similar so far, just flip the 3rd and 2nd year)
1999: 11-5
2000: 10-6
2001: 9-7
2002: 10-6
2003: 12-4
2004: 12-4
2005: 14-2
2006: 12-4
2007: 13-3
2008: 12-4

Now, don't even try to say that I'm saying Childress is as good as Dungy.
My reasoning for using him in the above post was to show how asinine your reasoning is.
It is interesting however, that his first three years as coach aren't even showing improvements like Childress' does.
He took a backward step in his 3rd season as HC.
Fire Dungy.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 04:54 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.


No, Dungy has proven he can take a team to the next level.

Childress hasn't proven anything.


i feel you Cmac on your passion.. i just think you are articulating it wrong... sure i'd love to see chilly fired, or rather moreso,
i'd love to see us get a new OC...

But either way you shake it, he deserves another year... you can say the same thing about Denny Green who lost his first 3 playoff games, before getting it together... or Dungy who could only take his team to the big one after he got Peyton, only to get bounced in the first round 6 times... Or you could say the same about Andy Reid...

Either way, i feel your passion.. . but i do think he deserves another year.. Has Childress made mistakes, YES tons of them...

I will say though, that with the talent on this team, WE ARE VERY MUCH SO UNDERACHIEVING..!!!
with that said, SO IS DALLAS... and they have a better QB!

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 04:56 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.


No, Dungy has proven he can take a team to the next level.

Childress hasn't proven anything.


He has proven that he can build a team and that he can improve every year in the three years he has under his belt as HC.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder what Dungy's record (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/DungTo0.htm) is in his early years.
Let's take a gander at that:

1996: 6-10
1997: 10-6
1998: 8-8
(wow, looks similar so far, just flip the 3rd and 2nd year)
1999: 11-5
2000: 10-6
2001: 9-7
2002: 10-6
2003: 12-4
2004: 12-4
2005: 14-2
2006: 12-4
2007: 13-3
2008: 12-4

Now, don't even try to say that I'm saying Childress is as good as Dungy.
My reasoning for using him in the above post was to show how asinine your reasoning is.
It is interesting however, that his first three years as coach aren't even showing improvements like Childress' does.
He took a backward step in his 3rd season as HC.
Fire Dungy.


If you watch a game coached by Childress... it's just humorous, all the stupid little errors he makes with challenges, clock management, personnel... etc.

Dungy is a game manager and a hell of a coach, which is why people weren't calling for his head after the third season.


I'm still seeing the same mistakes by Childress and staff. But seriously, for all of those who think I'm wrong and Chilly will take us to the SB... Trust me, I'll be here to laugh my ass off when he's fired.

Euphman06
01-07-2009, 05:00 PM
Thank you prophet!
Some one who makes sense and backs up their reasoning... Keep the Chiller, get rid of Bevell. Atleast he's improving every year that he has had this team after a complete rehaul. This team will go nowhere if every coach that comes in only gets three years and out, no CONSISTANCY. The winning coaches who win over and over each year are the ones that stay put. Look at the one hit wonders... The MANgenius for the jets? FIRED.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 05:05 PM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.


No, Dungy has proven he can take a team to the next level.

Childress hasn't proven anything.


He has proven that he can build a team and that he can improve every year in the three years he has under his belt as HC.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder what Dungy's record (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/DungTo0.htm) is in his early years.
Let's take a gander at that:

1996: 6-10
1997: 10-6
1998: 8-8
(wow, looks similar so far, just flip the 3rd and 2nd year)
1999: 11-5
2000: 10-6
2001: 9-7
2002: 10-6
2003: 12-4
2004: 12-4
2005: 14-2
2006: 12-4
2007: 13-3
2008: 12-4

Now, don't even try to say that I'm saying Childress is as good as Dungy.
My reasoning for using him in the above post was to show how asinine your reasoning is.
It is interesting however, that his first three years as coach aren't even showing improvements like Childress' does.
He took a backward step in his 3rd season as HC.
Fire Dungy.


If you watch a game coached by Childress... it's just humorous, all the stupid little errors he makes with challenges, clock management, personnel... etc.

Dungy is a game manager and a hell of a coach, which is why people weren't calling for his head after the third season.


I'm still seeing the same mistakes by Childress and staff. But seriously, for all of those who think I'm wrong and Chilly will take us to the SB... Trust me, I'll be here to laugh my ass off when he's fired.


That's where your blinders are.
I don't know of a single person that thinks Childress is the best coach in the world.
I've whined about the clock management, I do not like the QB situtation, I do not like some of his calls, etc.
There are also plenty of positive things too.
Whether Childress takes the Vikings to the SB or not will remain to be seen.
I suppose you are in the crowd that gives Chucky down in Tampa credit for their SB win the year after they canned Dungy who built the team for him.
Now, in retrospect, when Dungy has a record built up Tampa looks like the tards that they are.
Will Childress lead any team to the promised land during his career?
Who knows.
It is too early to tell.
My biggest gripes on him are the QB situation, which may pan out, his lack of clock management skills that show up too often.
There are many more faults with the team, but not so easily blamed on only him.
If he chokes next season and gets canned I'm all for it.
If he builds a team that competes, which he has, I'm all for keeping him and seeing what transpires.
I've lived through all the SB losses and through all the coaches the Vikings have put on the board and I like what I see with Childress more than I liked with any coach since Grant.
We will never agree on that.
My guess is that if the Vikings won three SB in a row under Childress that people like you would still find ways to try to prove how they didn't deserve it.
You are blinded by your hate for him, you don't even try to look at it objectively.
I have yet to see even one of your arguments that couldn't get shot down by the most casual of fans.
If you have them, bring them to the table.
According to you there is a neverending list.
All I ask is you support it and don't come up with some one-liner and try to pass it off as fact.

C Mac D
01-07-2009, 05:08 PM
If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.

Mr Anderson
01-07-2009, 05:13 PM
"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


It won't happen, but I bookmarked this.

I'm going to make several hard copies as well when I get a chance.

bleedpurple
01-07-2009, 05:17 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:




Dungy has a Super Bowl ring.

I bet you Dungy's team isn't one of the league leaders in penalties either.


Who cares?
The result is the same.
Fire Dungy.


No, Dungy has proven he can take a team to the next level.

Childress hasn't proven anything.


He has proven that he can build a team and that he can improve every year in the three years he has under his belt as HC.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder what Dungy's record (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/DungTo0.htm) is in his early years.
Let's take a gander at that:

1996: 6-10
1997: 10-6
1998: 8-8
(wow, looks similar so far, just flip the 3rd and 2nd year)
1999: 11-5
2000: 10-6
2001: 9-7
2002: 10-6
2003: 12-4
2004: 12-4
2005: 14-2
2006: 12-4
2007: 13-3
2008: 12-4

Now, don't even try to say that I'm saying Childress is as good as Dungy.
My reasoning for using him in the above post was to show how asinine your reasoning is.
It is interesting however, that his first three years as coach aren't even showing improvements like Childress' does.
He took a backward step in his 3rd season as HC.
Fire Dungy.


If you watch a game coached by Childress... it's just humorous, all the stupid little errors he makes with challenges, clock management, personnel... etc.

Dungy is a game manager and a hell of a coach, which is why people weren't calling for his head after the third season.


I'm still seeing the same mistakes by Childress and staff. But seriously, for all of those who think I'm wrong and Chilly will take us to the SB... Trust me, I'll be here to laugh my jiggly butt off when he's fired.


That's where your blinders are.
I don't know of a single person that thinks Childress is the best coach in the world.
I've whined about the clock management, I do not like the QB situtation, I do not like some of his calls, etc.
There are also plenty of positive things too.
Whether Childress takes the Vikings to the SB or not will remain to be seen.
I suppose you are in the crowd that gives Chucky down in Tampa credit for their SB win the year after they canned Dungy who built the team for him.
Now, in retrospect, when Dungy has a record built up Tampa looks like the tards that they are.
Will Childress lead any team to the promised land during his career?
Who knows.
It is too early to tell.
My biggest gripes on him are the QB situation, which may pan out, his lack of clock management skills that show up too often.
There are many more faults with the team, but not so easily blamed on only him.
If he chokes next season and gets canned I'm all for it.
If he builds a team that competes, which he has, I'm all for keeping him and seeing what transpires.
I've lived through all the SB losses and through all the coaches the Vikings have put on the board and I like what I see with Childress more than I liked with any coach since Grant.
We will never agree on that.
My guess is that if the Vikings won three SB in a row under Childress that people like you would still find ways to try to prove how they didn't deserve it.
You are blinded by your hate for him, you don't even try to look at it objectively.
I have yet to see even one of your arguments that couldn't get shot down by the most casual of fans.
If you have them, bring them to the table.
According to you there is a neverending list.
All I ask is you support it and don't come up with some one-liner and try to pass it off as fact.


any coach since bud grant??... I'm kind of fond of Denny before chilly.... atleast his offense was fun to watch... can you imagine what he'd be able to do with the team we have...?

I feel you though!.. i'm willing to wait and give him another year... i do think the OC needs to go along with the Line and WR coaches... but since they are prob gonna stay, i'll take a wait and see on that as well... (like i have a choice)

My biggest prob. with childress is the lack of imagination in adapting to his players strengths.. KC did an awesome job of adjusting their offense to fit Thigpen.. We haven't shown that we can the most out of Tjack when necessary... Hell, Pitt does it with Big Ben.. he has that amazing defense, a crappy line, but some how they win, with Ben still throwing 20 passes a game...

It's things like this that get to me the most.. not adapting our offense.. Clock management reared it's ugly head quite a few times.. mostly right before half time...

I have seen some improvements with penalties.. not defensively, but atleast the offense isn't for the most part, killing drives with false starts in the redzone like in year 1... that was just horrendous...

Prophet
01-07-2009, 05:33 PM
"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


All you would have to do is grow the stach.

Even if he gets canned it will prove nothing.
If he doesn't get another opportunity and ends up being a ballboy or guarding Al Davis' corpse you can gloat to whatever fictitious person that, in your mind, thinks Childress is the God of Coaches.

You can't stop saying it for the offseason, the offseason is long and you have to be able to toss in a fire childress every once in a while.
The place wouldn't be the same without it.
There are plenty of others that are on your quest.
You are the Jim Jones of pp.o.

Prophet
01-07-2009, 05:44 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


...
any coach since bud grant??... I'm kind of fond of Denny before chilly.... atleast his offense was fun to watch... can you imagine what he'd be able to do with the team we have...?

I feel you though!.. i'm willing to wait and give him another year... i do think the OC needs to go along with the Line and WR coaches... but since they are prob gonna stay, i'll take a wait and see on that as well... (like i have a choice)

My biggest prob. with childress is the lack of imagination in adapting to his players strengths.. KC did an awesome job of adjusting their offense to fit Thigpen.. We haven't shown that we can the most out of Tjack when necessary... Hell, Pitt does it with Big Ben.. he has that amazing defense, a crappy line, but some how they win, with Ben still throwing 20 passes a game...

It's things like this that get to me the most.. not adapting our offense.. Clock management reared it's ugly head quite a few times.. mostly right before half time...

I have seen some improvements with penalties.. not defensively, but atleast the offense isn't for the most part, killing drives with false starts in the redzone like in year 1... that was just horrendous...




I was never a Denny fan, the offense was fun to watch though.
My favorite game is the score of 3-2, I like defense, it's my preference.
Maybe because I'm retarded, maybe it's the allure of watching bones getting crunched while trying to carry a ball across a painted line.

The penalites and execution have been painful.
They did a good job of carrying on this year when the QB of the defense was lost for the season.
They also did a good job managing the personnel with injuries and suspensions.
I remember Bud getting on the airwaves and talking about how it was an ugly win, but, a win is a win.
Some don't believe that the Vikings are close, I do.
If the penalties alone would come down it would have resulted in a couple more wins.
The if game is bullshit, anyone can make that crap up about any game.

I often wonder about Childress and wtf he's doing.
It's stressful watching the team and it always has been, with the possible exception of most of the '98 year.
I would love to have kept Tomlin as HC, but, the timing was wrong and it is all about timing for availability of coaches and players.

Yeah, we're all forced to wait and see and this debate will go on until the Vikings win a SB, regardless of who the coach is.
It's the same thing every year.
The Vikings start off with a loss and some people lose their mind or they start off with a win and some are claiming SB.
The only thing I'm sure of is that the term Fanatic fits perfectly.

V-Unit
01-07-2009, 07:31 PM
"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


OK man, we get that you aren't satisfied with a NFC North Championship. If you only will be satisfied by a SB win, you'll probably have many frustrating years awaiting you, with or without Childress.

This season was a step in the right direction.

ejmat
01-07-2009, 07:32 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



Also CMac you are pretty tough telling me to shut up behind your computer screen and that I am making you sick.
What's making you sick is your delusions of grandeur that you have because you think you are always right and can't take the fact there is more tangeables involved that your mind can't handle.

You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.
Played Tennessee tough.
Your mentality of win it all or don't win at all makes me sick and most other posters on this site.
At least I can back up my theories in which all you do (and it is highly documented) is spew negativity without hardly any basis behind it.
Then you twist things around and try to nit-pick things that mean absolutely nothing.
When you are called out to explain things you ALWAYS back down as Zeus and I have asked you to do on several occasions to try and prove us wrong.

Let me make things easy for you.
The Vikings have a 1 in 32 chance of winning the superbowl.
Since they may never live up to your expectations go find another team that will and stop spreading your negative upchuck around here.
I am not a violent person nor do I like to make threats.
But if you are going to tell me to shut up you better be able to back it up atleast verbally which you will never be able to do.




I'm not trying to be tough... but it's just the same response. It's like you've accepted that we'll never be that 1/32 teams to win the SB. And you've said that before, hence why you're fine with a losing coach.

I get it.


"ejmat" wrote:


You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.

Carolina wasn't playing as good as they were towards the end of the season. Giants, yes... we beat their 2nd stringers. Congrats. Arizona, definitely a good win... but they won the weakest division in the NFL.

And as for almost beating Indy... who cares?


Try to prove you and Zeus wrong? How haven't I proven you wrong? We haven't won shit? You simply settle for mediocrity and probably have that ingrained into your head... I can't argue with that sort of apathy.

Some people hold things to a higher standard and expect more. Some people don't.

I'll let you figure out who is who.



I haven't accepted the fact we would never win a superbowl.
Once again I have to answer to a nit picky statement you want to twist my words into something I don't mean.
You haven't proven anyone wrong.
Just becasue we lost a playoff game you've proven us wrong.
So with that analogy every coach that doesn't win the superbowl should be fired.
That is your standard right?
So let's see that would mean all but one of these HCs:

Coughlin
Fox
Reid
Childress
Whisenhunt
Smith
Fisher
Tomlin
Harbaugh
Sporano
Turner
Dungy

Hell you may as well fire every other HC becasue they didn't win.
Here you go.
Here is something you can do to prove me wrong.
Please tell me all the coaches that have won a superbowl in their first 3 years as a HC.
IBy the way Parcells is not on that list.
Pleas genius tell me.
I will guarantee you the majority of HCs in the NFL haven't won a superbowl in their first 3 years as HC.
In fact I would bet the number is over 90% of coaches haven't.

As far as holding people to a higher standard the only people I need to do that for is my staff.
I have that right.
To hold the Vikings to an unreasonable standard is ludicrous just as most of your posts.
Oh yeah when we played Carolina they were 2-0.
How weren't they playing well?
You still bring up the Giants 2nd stringers which holds no water what-so-ever.
As stated a million times we were in front of their starters.


It's funny how you leave out the rest of the schedule.
By the way the teams we played ended with an over .500 record.
In fact if you take out the 2 Lions games they were 34 games over .500 with the rest of their schedule.
They only play the Lions twice so its not like the rest of their schedule wasn't tough.

Purple Floyd
01-07-2009, 08:19 PM
If the off season goes as I predicted we will lose Childress when another team offers him a promotion to the front office. Hopefully that gets done before all of the hot prospects are hired.

I wish him well in his new position.

CulpepperViking16
01-07-2009, 10:27 PM
6-10......8-8.......[b]10-6[b]

Maybe you should be waiting until next season to start getting upset. I like Childress now...not because he seems like a good coach, but because we made the playoffs and keep getting better.

I think there's a clear distinction to what the fans call success and to what the administration calls success

Zeus
01-07-2009, 10:45 PM
"C" wrote:


Try to prove you and Zeus wrong? How haven't I proven you wrong? We haven't won shit? You simply settle for mediocrity and probably have that ingrained into your head... I can't argue with that sort of apathy.

Some people hold things to a higher standard and expect more. Some people don't.

I'll let you figure out who is who.


Some people hold things to an impossible standard so they don't ever have to be wrong.

I'll let you figure out who that is.

The 2008 Minnesota Vikings won a division title.
You can call that nothing if you want, but I know there are a whole bunch of big tough football players who would disagree vehemently with you.

=Z=

gregair13
01-07-2009, 10:47 PM
"CulpepperViking16" wrote:


6-10......8-8.......10-6

Maybe you should be waiting until next season to start getting upset. I like Childress now...not because he seems like a good coach, but because we made the playoffs and keep getting better.

I think there's a clear distinction to what the fans call success and to what the administration calls success

so that means we get 12 next year, right?

CulpepperViking16
01-07-2009, 10:55 PM
"gregair13" wrote:


"CulpepperViking16" wrote:


6-10......8-8.......10-6

Maybe you should be waiting until next season to start getting upset. I like Childress now...not because he seems like a good coach, but because we made the playoffs and keep getting better.

I think there's a clear distinction to what the fans call success and to what the administration calls success

so that means we get 12 next year, right?


haha....It's not out of the question.
8)

I'm just saying....look at the colts & steelers. They're good teams, but they had to work for it. It didn't happen overnight, and there was always room for improvement...but they're winning organizations, and I think the Vikings are heading in that direction, despite whining fans. It's funny that no one was really complaining to this extent when we had Culpepper & Moss and kept falling short...but we didn't fall short this year. We're NFC North champs

Storm
01-08-2009, 02:48 AM
"CulpepperViking16" wrote:


we didn't fall short this year.

I disagree. Losing in the wild card game means that we fell short. Way short, actually.

But on the topic, yeah, record-wise, we definitely made some progress. We did make the play-offs, but the result once we got there - very disappointing.

My main beef with our HC - the whole QB situation. He went all in on TJack for the second time in his career now. And once again, TJack blew it. Next year, we need some consistency at QB. And hopefully, we can figure out who we want to be our starter in the off-season. I'd hate to see another QB benching at the start of the season.

Zeus
01-08-2009, 06:31 AM
"Storm" wrote:


"CulpepperViking16" wrote:


we didn't fall short this year.

I disagree. Losing in the wild card game means that we fell short. Way short, actually.


And I disagree with you disagreeing.
There's no reason to be satisfied with a first-round playoff loss, of course, but 10 wins, 6 of them at home, beating the Packers, a Division title, the NFL rushing champion and many other things are worth celebrating.


And it's about time more PPOers recognized that.

=Z=

tke0933
01-08-2009, 06:55 AM
Didn't read the whole thread, but here is my opinion.
We did have a good year. Disappointing in that we didn't go farther in the playoffs, but still a good year.
Could it have been better.
Yes.
I think the team won with our players, not because of and in spite of the coaching.
With the talent this team has, I feel we should have done better.
Granted a couple of calls go our way and the record is better, but you can't rely on calls going our way all the time.
I think with a coach that can make adjustments at halftime, make a scheme to fit his players (until he has who he wants to fit his scheme) and call plays to keep the other teams' defense guessing, we would have had a fantastic year.
In my opinion, Childress is as stubborn as a mule and feels his way should work everytime when in reality it doesn't.

singersp
01-08-2009, 07:00 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


All you would have to do is grow the stach.


Agreed!

I tossed a "stache on one of CmacD's pics & the resemblance is uncanny...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/CmacD2.jpg

ejmat
01-08-2009, 07:33 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Unfortunatly we will never win with this coaching staff.The only way we have a shot at going deep in the playoffs is to get a new OC and a real game plan on offence.

Last year and the year before all we heard was "We will never make it to the playoffs" or "We will never beat the Packers" etc etc etc.

Do we need to work on a few things?
Of course but it is very unlikely that the team won't continue to get better cause it has each of the last 2 years.


Some of us even contend that we were better when the team was gutted even though we had worse talent.

;D


Childress is 1-5 (in 3 years) vs the Packers... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.

We went to the playoffs in the 2nd weakest division in the NFL and lost in the first round... and you're using that as a positive in your argument.

Hilarious.


I guess the 3 year plan was to simply get one extra game this season? Oh... and lose it...


The Viking beat every one of the Division Winners in the NFC.
Every one of them.
Nobody likes that they lost and your assumption that mediocrity is ok is asinine.
I want nothing short of a SB win and they are finally building a team that has the potential to do it.



Also CMac you are pretty tough telling me to shut up behind your computer screen and that I am making you sick.
What's making you sick is your delusions of grandeur that you have because you think you are always right and can't take the fact there is more tangeables involved that your mind can't handle.

You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.
Played Tennessee tough.
Your mentality of win it all or don't win at all makes me sick and most other posters on this site.
At least I can back up my theories in which all you do (and it is highly documented) is spew negativity without hardly any basis behind it.
Then you twist things around and try to nit-pick things that mean absolutely nothing.
When you are called out to explain things you ALWAYS back down as Zeus and I have asked you to do on several occasions to try and prove us wrong.

Let me make things easy for you.
The Vikings have a 1 in 32 chance of winning the superbowl.
Since they may never live up to your expectations go find another team that will and stop spreading your negative upchuck around here.
I am not a violent person nor do I like to make threats.
But if you are going to tell me to shut up you better be able to back it up atleast verbally which you will never be able to do.




I'm not trying to be tough... but it's just the same response. It's like you've accepted that we'll never be that 1/32 teams to win the SB. And you've said that before, hence why you're fine with a losing coach.

I get it.


"ejmat" wrote:


You continue to say we won a weak division.
You also forget we beat the Giants, Carolina, Arizona (all NFC division winners).
We also almost beat Indy.

Carolina wasn't playing as good as they were towards the end of the season. Giants, yes... we beat their 2nd stringers. Congrats. Arizona, definitely a good win... but they won the weakest division in the NFL.

And as for almost beating Indy... who cares?


Try to prove you and Zeus wrong? How haven't I proven you wrong? We haven't won shit? You simply settle for mediocrity and probably have that ingrained into your head... I can't argue with that sort of apathy.

Some people hold things to a higher standard and expect more. Some people don't.

I'll let you figure out who is who.



I haven't accepted the fact we would never win a superbowl.
Once again I have to answer to a nit picky statement you want to twist my words into something I don't mean.
You haven't proven anyone wrong.
Just becasue we lost a playoff game you've proven us wrong.
So with that analogy every coach that doesn't win the superbowl should be fired.
That is your standard right?
So let's see that would mean all but one of these HCs:

Coughlin
Fox
Reid
Childress
Whisenhunt
Smith
Fisher
Tomlin
Harbaugh
Sporano
Turner
Dungy

Hell you may as well fire every other HC becasue they didn't win.
Here you go.
Here is something you can do to prove me wrong.
Please tell me all the coaches that have won a superbowl in their first 3 years as a HC.
IBy the way Parcells is not on that list.
Pleas genius tell me.
I will guarantee you the majority of HCs in the NFL haven't won a superbowl in their first 3 years as HC.
In fact I would bet the number is over 90% of coaches haven't.

As far as holding people to a higher standard the only people I need to do that for is my staff.
I have that right.
To hold the Vikings to an unreasonable standard is ludicrous just as most of your posts.
Oh yeah when we played Carolina they were 2-0.
How weren't they playing well?
You still bring up the Giants 2nd stringers which holds no water what-so-ever.
As stated a million times we were in front of their starters.


It's funny how you leave out the rest of the schedule.
By the way the teams we played ended with an over .500 record.
In fact if you take out the 2 Lions games they were 34 games over .500 with the rest of their schedule.
They only play the Lions twice so its not like the rest of their schedule wasn't tough.





Boy Wonder (C Mac C) - Still waiting for your list of HCs that have won a superbowl in the first 3 years of HCing.
Here let start you off.
George Seifort.

He already took over a superbowl team but I still give him credit because it is difficult to repeat.
You can finish from there.
Come on genius.

PurpleTide
01-08-2009, 07:42 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Try to prove you and Zeus wrong? How haven't I proven you wrong? We haven't won pooh? You simply settle for mediocrity and probably have that ingrained into your head... I can't argue with that sort of apathy.

Some people hold things to a higher standard and expect more. Some people don't.

I'll let you figure out who is who.


Some people hold things to an impossible standard so they don't ever have to be wrong.

I'll let you figure out who that is.

The 2008 Minnesota Vikings won a division title.
You can call that nothing if you want, but I know there are a whole bunch of big tough football players who would disagree vehemently with you.

=Z=


Although it was painfull to lose in the first round, I agree with Zeus in that we took significant steps in the right direction. We have a strong nucleus of players to build on, and are only going to improve. Celebrate our 10 win season, and Division Crown. I believe we are going in the right direction. 6-8, 8-8, 10-6, 12-4 is possible with this team.

Prophet
01-08-2009, 08:13 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


All you would have to do is grow the stach.


Agreed!

I tossed a "stache on one of CmacD's pics & the resemblance is uncanny...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/CmacD2.jpg


lmao!
We need a side by side of the two.
I'm starting to think that CMacD is Childress.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 08:14 AM
Just to get the discussion going in earnest again, not only are we better in the Win/Loss catagory but we are also statistically better.......

By the By, I only went back to 2003 cause that is the benchmark that I used to see if Tice improved/degraded statistically as a coach.
Some interesting findings that might open some eyes.

Offense
2008
Overall - 330.5 (17th)
- Rush 145.8 (5th) – Pass 184.8 (25th) – Pts 379 (12th)

2007
Overall – 336.2 (13th)
- Rush 164.6 (1th) – Pass 171.6 (28th) – Pts 365 (15th)

2006
Overall – 308.9 (23rd)
- Rush 113.8 (16th) – Pass 195.2 (18th) – Pts 282 (26th)

2005
Overall – 288.3 (25th)
- Rush 91.7 (27th) – Pass 196.6 (20th) – Pts 306 (19th)

2004
Overall – 396.2 (4th)
- Rush 113.9 (18th) – Pass 282.3 (2nd) – Pts 405 (6th)

2003
Overall – 393.42 (1rst)
- Rush 146.4 (4th) – Pass 246.9 (4th) – Pts 416 (6th)

Defense
2008
Pts/G 20.8– Yds/G 292.4– Rush Yds/G – 76.9 – Pass Yds/G 215.6 – Int 12-Sack 45

2007
Pts/G 19.4– Yds/G 338.1– Rush Yds/G – 74.1 – Pass Yds/G 264.1 – Int 15-Sack 38

2006
Pts/G 20.4– Yds/G 300.2– Rush Yds/G – 61.6 – Pass Yds/G 238.6 – Int 21-Sack 30

2005
Pts/G 21.5– Yds/G 323.3– Rush Yds/G – 115.1 – Pass Yds/G 208.3 – Int 24-Sack 34

2004
Pts/G 24.7– Yds/G 368.9– Rush Yds/G – 125.4 – Pass Yds/G 243.5 – Int 11-Sack 39

2003
Pts/G 22.1– Yds/G 334.8– Rush Yds/G – 117.4 – Pass Yds/G 217.3 – Int 28-Sack 37

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/min/stats?year=season_2006

ejmat
01-08-2009, 08:15 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


All you would have to do is grow the stach.


Agreed!

I tossed a "stache on one of CmacD's pics & the resemblance is uncanny...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/CmacD2.jpg


lmao!
We need a side by side of the two.
I'm starting to think that CMacD is Childress.


Maybe he's (Childress) is trying to see which fans like him and which don't so he masquerades as C Mac C.

Prophet
01-08-2009, 08:17 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


All you would have to do is grow the stach.


Agreed!

I tossed a "stache on one of CmacD's pics & the resemblance is uncanny...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/CmacD2.jpg


lmao!
We need a side by side of the two.
I'm starting to think that CMacD is Childress.


Maybe he's (Childress) is trying to see which fans like him and which don't so he masquerades as C Mac C.


Yes, that's it.
He is spending too much time on pp.o and not enough time game planning and managing a team.
Once you're addicted to pp.o there's no cure.
Now I'm on the hire a GM bandwagon, give Chiller more time to post and the managing of some of the team is taken off his hands at the same time.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 08:19 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:




If we won three Super Bowls under Childress, I'd legally change my name to Brad Childress.


EDIT: I've also made numerous specific claims about his coaching in post-game rants. Listen, I'm done... this entire off season, I won't mention how Chilly should be fired once.

But when we're looking for a new HC, the flood gates are opening.


All you would have to do is grow the stach.


Agreed!

I tossed a "stache on one of CmacD's pics & the resemblance is uncanny...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/CmacD2.jpg


lmao!
We need a side by side of the two.
I'm starting to think that CMacD is Childress.


Maybe he's (Childress) is trying to see which fans like him and which don't so he masquerades as C Mac C.


Yes, that's it.
He is spending too much time on pp.o and not enough time game planning and managing a team.
Once you're addicted to pp.o there's no cure.
Now I'm on the hire a GM bandwagon, give Chiller more time to post and the managing of some of the team is taken off his hands at the same time.


We have finally figured it out.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 08:40 AM
I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was damn pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 08:45 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was damn pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.

i_bleed_purple
01-08-2009, 08:51 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was damn pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 08:52 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


I never said we didn't play hard teams. However, that's a moot point when your divional rivals play the same teams. We are too talented to waste these shots at a title. The biggest issues we have facing this team is positions that Chilly( not the FO) has handicapped us at; QB and RT. Look at the Chargers from 2 years ago. They made it to a Championship game and removed a coach that they felt could not get them over the hump. THey have a talented team, they were winning divisonal titles but the Owners felt that they team was good enough to do more. We are good enough to go all the way and we are being held back. Chilly makes us good enough to always be 1 game in or 1 game out of the playoffs but not to take us all the way and the point of the season is.....

TO GO ALL THE WAY

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 08:54 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.

i_bleed_purple
01-08-2009, 09:00 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't

Prophet
01-08-2009, 09:03 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't


Finding holes in the logic of the illogical is about as challenging as stealing candy from a baby.
I think I prefer stealing candy.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 09:20 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown

Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.

i_bleed_purple
01-08-2009, 09:27 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:




I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown


Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.


your arguments are poor.

Nobody thought NE couldn't lose to NY, but most people thought they would win.
I bet if they played 10 times, NE would win 8 of them.

as for TEN/IND, that divisions close, it can go either way, you might also notice that I never bolded that one, so perhaps you should reread things before making comments on them.

for PIT, your right, none of them are easy, but they are good enough to beat any of them.

Carolina is a better team than any of those teams (except maybe the giants, but I think they are)
I don't need to give any more proof than their record, and the fact that they're still in the playoffs, and none of the other teams are (except new york)

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 09:39 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:






I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown


Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.


your arguments are poor.

Nobody thought NE couldn't lose to NY, but most people thought they would win.
I bet if they played 10 times, NE would win 8 of them.

as for TEN/IND, that divisions close, it can go either way, you might also notice that I never bolded that one, so perhaps you should reread things before making comments on them.

for PIT, your right, none of them are easy, but they are good enough to beat any of them.

Carolina is a better team than any of those teams (except maybe the giants, but I think they are)
I don't need to give any more proof than their record, and the fact that they're still in the playoffs, and none of the other teams are (except new york)


NE and the Giants played twice and the game was close both times. Why would it be any different? If they played 10 times, I would expect a 6-4 split. You bought into the hype. What i saw in NE was a team that had a great running back but refused to use him. The Giants formular of running the ball to tire out NE's older Lbs will always be successful. The Gmen have/had both a top teir rushing attack and a top teir passign attack. They also have heart and a coach that knows that you don't call a timeout to challenge a play.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 09:42 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:






I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown


Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.


your arguments are poor.

Nobody thought NE couldn't lose to NY, but most people thought they would win.
I bet if they played 10 times, NE would win 8 of them.

as for TEN/IND, that divisions close, it can go either way, you might also notice that I never bolded that one, so perhaps you should reread things before making comments on them.

for PIT, your right, none of them are easy, but they are good enough to beat any of them.

Carolina is a better team than any of those teams (except maybe the giants, but I think they are)
I don't need to give any more proof than their record, and the fact that they're still in the playoffs, and none of the other teams are (except new york)


Carolina had a bye week. If they played Az/Phi,Atl or us, they could potentially lose any of those games and a likely to lose 2 of the 4(I'll let ou chose which ones).

i_bleed_purple
01-08-2009, 09:42 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:








I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown


Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.


your arguments are poor.

Nobody thought NE couldn't lose to NY, but most people thought they would win.
I bet if they played 10 times, NE would win 8 of them.

as for TEN/IND, that divisions close, it can go either way, you might also notice that I never bolded that one, so perhaps you should reread things before making comments on them.

for PIT, your right, none of them are easy, but they are good enough to beat any of them.

Carolina is a better team than any of those teams (except maybe the giants, but I think they are)
I don't need to give any more proof than their record, and the fact that they're still in the playoffs, and none of the other teams are (except new york)


NE and the Giants played twice and the game was close both times. Why would it be any different? If they played 10 times, I would expect a 6-4 split. You bought into the hype. What i saw in NE was a team that had a great running back but refused to use him. The Giants formular of running the ball to tire out NE's older Lbs will always be successful. The Gmen have/had both a top teir rushing attack and a top teir passign attack. They also have heart and a coach that knows that you don't call a timeout to challenge a play.


sure, so let me get this straight.
when you looked at the matchup, NE is 18-0, NY is 13-6 and didn't think New England SHOULD win that game?
If you didn't your an idiot.
Any team that is undefeated should be the favourite, and should continue to win.
Nobody's saying its a sure thing, but they should win.

Prophet
01-08-2009, 09:42 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


....

NE and the Giants played twice and the game was close both times. Why would it be any different? If they played 10 times, I would expect a 6-4 split. You bought into the hype. What i saw in NE was a team that had a great running back but refused to use him. The Giants formular of running the ball to tire out NE's older Lbs will always be successful. The Gmen have/had both a top teir rushing attack and a top teir passign attack. They also have heart and a coach that knows that you don't call a timeout to challenge a play.


....and the Gmen have lost their last two matches against the Vikings.
In week 12 of their SB run they lost 42-17 and in the last game this season their starters were losing 10-9 at the half.

Childress has made some excellent challenges this year.
You only have to look back at the Iggles game to see that.
Your arguments would hold more water if you would look at it objectively.

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 09:44 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was damn pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my ass. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is a coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, and rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Chiller and promoted Frazier, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 09:53 AM
"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This my friend, is one of them....... ;D

ejmat
01-08-2009, 10:02 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


I never said we didn't play hard teams. However, that's a moot point when your divional rivals play the same teams. We are too talented to waste these shots at a title. The biggest issues we have facing this team is positions that Chilly( not the FO) has handicapped us at; QB and RT. Look at the Chargers from 2 years ago. They made it to a Championship game and removed a coach that they felt could not get them over the hump. THey have a talented team, they were winning divisonal titles but the Owners felt that they team was good enough to do more. We are good enough to go all the way and we are being held back. Chilly makes us good enough to always be 1 game in or 1 game out of the playoffs but not to take us all the way and the point of the season is.....

TO GO ALL THE WAY


Wrong.
Not every team is the same.
How can you say it's a moot point.
It's a very valid point.
It means we beat quality teams throughout the season to get to 10-6.
I'm not sure what you are thinking with that comment.


Your example of the Chargers is true.
However that is ONE exaample of a team making a very stupid mistake.
Your crystal ball again holds not validity.
He's made the playoffs one year.
That is the reason why he deserves another year to see how he progresses.
Hence the reason why I say it can be determined much better after next season.


Like I told CMacC, one team out of 32 go all the way.
That just isn't great odds.
So to fire a HC becasue they don't make it to the superbowl is just plain stupid.
There are reasons to fire a HC and that is not one of them.
Case and point, your example of the Chargers have digressed since their AFC Championship appearance.
I would love to see them win it all this year and I hope they do but fact is they have struggled without Schotty and have barely made the playoffs with a team full of stars and potential.

Look at Dallas with their team.
They basically stayed at home for the playoffs.
On paper they have a better team than the Vikings do.

singersp
01-08-2009, 10:04 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This my friend, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 10:09 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or damn close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.

jargomcfargo
01-08-2009, 10:11 AM
"singersp" wrote:



Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?


QFT.
Very telling.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 10:11 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:










I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown


Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.


your arguments are poor.

Nobody thought NE couldn't lose to NY, but most people thought they would win.
I bet if they played 10 times, NE would win 8 of them.

as for TEN/IND, that divisions close, it can go either way, you might also notice that I never bolded that one, so perhaps you should reread things before making comments on them.

for PIT, your right, none of them are easy, but they are good enough to beat any of them.

Carolina is a better team than any of those teams (except maybe the giants, but I think they are)
I don't need to give any more proof than their record, and the fact that they're still in the playoffs, and none of the other teams are (except new york)


NE and the Giants played twice and the game was close both times. Why would it be any different? If they played 10 times, I would expect a 6-4 split. You bought into the hype. What i saw in NE was a team that had a great running back but refused to use him. The Giants formular of running the ball to tire out NE's older Lbs will always be successful. The Gmen have/had both a top teir rushing attack and a top teir passign attack. They also have heart and a coach that knows that you don't call a timeout to challenge a play.


sure, so let me get this straight.
when you looked at the matchup, NE is 18-0, NY is 13-6 and didn't think New England SHOULD win that game?
If you didn't your an idiot.
Any team that is undefeated should be the favourite, and should continue to win.
Nobody's saying its a sure thing, but they should win.


Actually, if you look at it logically, they are poised for a loss. Yousing a probability equation you can multiply the likely hood of them winning each game and you would end up with a 1 in a couple of million chance of going 18 - 0.
Lets ignore that they almost lost to the Ravens and Philly if not for some questionable calls. Lets forget that they almsot lost to the Same G Men 3 weeks earlier, If you ask me if they should beat the Giants on that day, I tell you I'm not sure who will win. You problem was you placed them in BOLD. Which means that they should easiley have won the game. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion when they almost lost the biggest game of their season by 1 score in week 17.

Prophet
01-08-2009, 10:13 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:



Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?


QFT.
Very telling.


No doubt, most telling tale of all the posts.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 10:16 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:



Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?


QFT.
Very telling.


No doubt, most telling tale of all the posts.

Nice point, however, I don't want ole PUKER boy to be our HC.
I want him to call a good game. Seems to me he had a few of those this year.
::)

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 10:18 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

singersp
01-08-2009, 10:19 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:



Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.



Can you be a little more specific? That covers quite a range between here, announcers & the media.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 10:24 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 10:25 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.



Can you be a little more specific? That covers quite a range between here, announcers & the media.

Obviously you either don't get NFLN and didn't see the re-air or you get NFLN and couldn't bare to watch it........

To answer your question.....Troy boy.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 10:33 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:












I don't agree with you much MAc but you have my support in this one. I don't care if we took baby steps this year and won the NFC North title. We won this title in a year that

1) Farvegate rocked the Packers and they lost half of their defensive starters
2) The Bears played with brandon Lloyd at WR and Marty Booker
3) The lions was out of the race by week 6.

I'm not going to say we won by default but it was gol 'darnit pretty close. We have too much talent to be playing the way our team is playing. I know you guys won't get this because just the thought of winning has become so alien to the Vikings but we are winning games just based on talent. It has been 3 years and we still don't have a 2 min drill. All of these playoff games, are deceided in the last to mins we would lose. If getting 8 - 10 wins is your idea of a sucess fine, However, I know that this team could be so much better with the right coach.



Love how you (like C Mac C) conveniently leave out the quality schedule we played to get to 10-6.
Of the 16 games we played against teams that were 2 games over .500.
Consider the Lions were 0-16 and that number would go up by 32 games leaving those two games out.
So the Vikings were 8-6 against teams that were 32 games over .500.


Call it a weak division if you want but they play 10 teams from other divisions.
The Vikings one of the toughest schedules in the league and finished 4 games over .500.
Please don't try and play the "weak division" crap.
It means nothing when there are quality teams that the Vikings beat.


Vikings also beat every division leader in the NFC.


We also lost a bunch of games we should have won
IND, TAMPA, BEARS

We almost lost to the Lions twice and it took a bulls*t PI call and a QB that is dumber that ours to get us the win.




Pats losses last year: Giants
Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts
Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants
carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG,
i've bolded all teams they realistically should have beat.

all teams lose to teams they shouldn't, it happens, as well most teams win some they shouldn't



Pats losses last year: Giants - Anyone that thought the Pats couldn't loss this game was an idiot. Yes the Sunday countdown guys was all over the pats but they played them 3-4 game searlier and struggled to beat them!!! In fact it
came down to a Randy Moss TD to win. I wouldn't have put money on them to win. Especially a team with the 2 best DEs that season.

Tennessee losses:, Jets, Texans, Colts - Why should Ten beat thew Colts? Do you follow this division? I might give you the Texans because they are so up and down.

Pittsburgh Losses: Phi, Colts, Titans, giants Take out Giants, and Colts and I will still give you that the Eagles is a 50- 50. Again, no team on this list is a cakewalk

carolina losses: MIn, TB, Atl, NYG, - We are more talented on Defense than Carolina, Their QB is coming off a major injury an had not gotten back into game shape, TB was the leaders of the division all season, ATL was having a great season and the Giants was the best team in the NFC this season. No team on this list screams that this team had a meltdown


Your examples are poor one but I agree that good teams lose games. However, It's not the loses but the manner in which we loss them. Perharps you just don't/won't see that. Just like it's not the wins, but the manner in which we win the game.


your arguments are poor.

Nobody thought NE couldn't lose to NY, but most people thought they would win.
I bet if they played 10 times, NE would win 8 of them.

as for TEN/IND, that divisions close, it can go either way, you might also notice that I never bolded that one, so perhaps you should reread things before making comments on them.

for PIT, your right, none of them are easy, but they are good enough to beat any of them.

Carolina is a better team than any of those teams (except maybe the giants, but I think they are)
I don't need to give any more proof than their record, and the fact that they're still in the playoffs, and none of the other teams are (except new york)


NE and the Giants played twice and the game was close both times. Why would it be any different? If they played 10 times, I would expect a 6-4 split. You bought into the hype. What i saw in NE was a team that had a great running back but refused to use him. The Giants formular of running the ball to tire out NE's older Lbs will always be successful. The Gmen have/had both a top teir rushing attack and a top teir passign attack. They also have heart and a coach that knows that you don't call a timeout to challenge a play.


sure, so let me get this straight.
when you looked at the matchup, NE is 18-0, NY is 13-6 and didn't think New England SHOULD win that game?
If you didn't your an idiot.
Any team that is undefeated should be the favourite, and should continue to win.
Nobody's saying its a sure thing, but they should win.


Actually, if you look at it logically, they are poised for a loss. Yousing a probability equation you can multiply the likely hood of them winning each game and you would end up with a 1 in a couple of million chance of going 18 - 0.
Lets ignore that they almost lost to the Ravens and Philly if not for some questionable calls. Lets forget that they almsot lost to the Same G Men 3 weeks earlier, If you ask me if they should beat the Giants on that day, I tell you I'm not sure who will win. You problem was you placed them in BOLD. Which means that they should easiley have won the game. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion when they almost lost the biggest game of their season by 1 score in week 17.



He never said "easily".
He said "should".
Also, if a team has those kind of odds to go 18-0 that would validate the point they should beat a 13 win team that has played 1 more game then they did.

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 11:09 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or damn close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Yeah, I tend to agree with you here. All we really need is a team that plays cleaner football. Frazier HC, Bevell OC, Dunbar DC?

Frazier may be able to hold both coaches and players to a higher level of accountability. Less mistakes, new ST coach, etc.

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 11:21 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.


No no no no no! Chilly's gameplan is to establish an early lead of 3-7 points and hold onto that lead with good defense and a ball control offense. It's clear that we struggle at late game winning drives.
Hell, we don't even practice a 2-minute drill because we are supposed to be ahead by that point in the game.

Our goal is not to win it in the last two minutes. The problem is that our offense has not been a ball control offense (too many turnovers) and thus has not been effective enough, so when our defense keeps it close, our O still can't put points on the board early. This results in games where we give our offense several chances to win, but they don't get the job done.

Now people will mention, "What about all those games where we had the lead but let the other team back into it?" Most of those games we let the other team back into it with turnovers and bad ST play.

Get a lead early and hold on, that is what Chilly tries to do. You can see it with the conservative scheme, the horrid 2-minute drill, and how badly the turnovers hurt our offensive production.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 11:26 AM
"V" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Yeah, I tend to agree with you here. All we really need is a team that plays cleaner football. Frazier HC, Bevell OC, Dunbar DC?

Frazier may be able to hold both coaches and players to a higher level of accountability. Less mistakes, new ST coach, etc.

Yea, like he does on the defensive side of the ball and thier ability to make very few penalties.......(Sarcasim alert).

My biggest offseason wish is that he gets hired someplace else my friend.....

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 11:27 AM
"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.


No no no no no! Chilly's gameplan is to establish an early lead of 3-7 points and hold onto that lead with good defense and a ball control offense. It's clear that we struggle at late game winning drives.
Hell, we don't even practice a 2-minute drill because we are supposed to be ahead by that point in the game.

Our goal is not to win it in the last two minutes. The problem is that our offense has not been a ball control offense (too many turnovers) and thus has not been effective enough, so when our defense keeps it close, our O still can't put points on the board early. This results in games where we give our offense several chances to win, but they don't get the job done.

Now people will mention, "What about all those games where we had the lead but let the other team back into it?" Most of those games we let the other team back into it with turnovers and bad ST play.

Get a lead early and hold on, that is what Chilly tries to do. You can see it with the conservative scheme, the horrid 2-minute drill, and how badly the turnovers hurt our offensive production.


Its a foolish philosphy. You want to win games, you keep sccoring until they are out of the game. When you jump up by 7 and try to run out the clock, it only gets you beat by teams that can score as illustrated by the Colts 18 points in the 4th quarter.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 11:31 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

What about TJ running around like he had no idea what to do next.
What about the run, incomplete pass and then run in the 2nd Quarter that gave the Eagles back the ball.
My point is when the entire offense look sliek they ahve no idea what to do next, it's the coaches. Sometimes it's the players but from what I can see, our entire team cannot execute what ever 2 min monster Chilly has drawn up.
Anyone has a youtube of the movie the Waterboy, when the Head Coach was talking about having his Qb pretend to fake. That's our 2 min drill.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 11:35 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

What about TJ running around like he had no idea what to do next.
What about the run, incomplete pass and then run in the 2nd Quarter that gave the Eagles back the ball.
My point is when the entire offense look sliek they ahve no idea what to do next, it's the coaches. Sometimes it's the players but from what I can see, our entire team cannot execute what ever 2 min monster Chilly has drawn up.
Anyone has a youtube of the movie the Waterboy, when the Head Coach was talking about having his Qb pretend to fake. That's our 2 min drill.

Put yourself in TJ's shoes.....

You have a OL that is acting like a turnstyle.
You don't have any WR's that can get open.
You need to move the ball down field fast.

Wouldn't you look like you were running around confused a bit trying to stay away from the 3 or 4 defenders (not 1 mind you) that are breathing down your neck as you try to extend the play as long as possible hoping a WR will figure out how to come back to you?

Seriously, think about that scenario.
It happened this weekend.
Could he have done better?
Sure, but I am not sure he could have done much better other than to just tuck it and run with it a bit more than he did, but hey, that isn't running a 2 minute drill now is it....... ::)

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 11:38 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

What about TJ running around like he had no idea what to do next.
What about the run, incomplete pass and then run in the 2nd Quarter that gave the Eagles back the ball.
My point is when the entire offense look sliek they ahve no idea what to do next, it's the coaches. Sometimes it's the players but from what I can see, our entire team cannot execute what ever 2 min monster Chilly has drawn up.
Anyone has a youtube of the movie the Waterboy, when the Head Coach was talking about having his Qb pretend to fake. That's our 2 min drill.

Put yourself in TJ's shoes.....

You have a OL that is acting like a turnstyle.
You don't have any WR's that can get open.
You need to move the ball down field fast.

Wouldn't you look like you were running around confused a bit trying to stay away from the 3 or 4 defenders (not 1 mind you) that are breathing down your neck as you try to extend the play as long as possible hoping a WR will figure out how to come back to you?

Seriously, think about that scenario.
It happened this weekend.

Could he have done better?
Sure, but I am not sure he could have done much better other than to just tuck it and run with it a bit more than he did, but hey, that isn't running a 2 minute drill now is it....... ::)


I'm not talking during the play marr, I'm talking when we are lining up. We look like we have had out heads cut off.
We aren't poised, we are always up against the clock and we waste timeouts. Lets not even forget the fact that we punted down 2 scores with 6 mins left in the game. Who does that? He did almso tthe same thing against Tenn and it cost us the game. He is learning and progressing but he is doing so too slowly.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 11:41 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

What about TJ running around like he had no idea what to do next.
What about the run, incomplete pass and then run in the 2nd Quarter that gave the Eagles back the ball.
My point is when the entire offense look sliek they ahve no idea what to do next, it's the coaches. Sometimes it's the players but from what I can see, our entire team cannot execute what ever 2 min monster Chilly has drawn up.
Anyone has a youtube of the movie the Waterboy, when the Head Coach was talking about having his Qb pretend to fake. That's our 2 min drill.

Put yourself in TJ's shoes.....

You have a OL that is acting like a turnstyle.
You don't have any WR's that can get open.
You need to move the ball down field fast.

Wouldn't you look like you were running around confused a bit trying to stay away from the 3 or 4 defenders (not 1 mind you) that are breathing down your neck as you try to extend the play as long as possible hoping a WR will figure out how to come back to you?

Seriously, think about that scenario.
It happened this weekend.

Could he have done better?
Sure, but I am not sure he could have done much better other than to just tuck it and run with it a bit more than he did, but hey, that isn't running a 2 minute drill now is it....... ::)


I'm not talking during the play marr, I'm talking when we are lining up. We look like we have had out heads cut off.
We aren't poised, we are always up against the clock and we waste timeouts. Lets not even forget the fact that we punted down 2 scores with 6 mins left in the game. Who does that? He did almso tthe same thing against Tenn and it cost us the game. He is learning and progressing but he is doing so too slowly.

Alright, I will give you that but it was the whole fricken team, not just TJ.

Hell our Pro-bowl C hicked the fricken ball when the QB was making an audible/pre-snap adjusment.
By the way, Matt and Chiller admitted to it during the re-air.

By the way, am I the only guy that took the time to watch that thing?

Prophet
01-08-2009, 11:44 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

What about TJ running around like he had no idea what to do next.
What about the run, incomplete pass and then run in the 2nd Quarter that gave the Eagles back the ball.
My point is when the entire offense look sliek they ahve no idea what to do next, it's the coaches. Sometimes it's the players but from what I can see, our entire team cannot execute what ever 2 min monster Chilly has drawn up.
Anyone has a youtube of the movie the Waterboy, when the Head Coach was talking about having his Qb pretend to fake. That's our 2 min drill.

Put yourself in TJ's shoes.....

You have a OL that is acting like a turnstyle.
You don't have any WR's that can get open.
You need to move the ball down field fast.

Wouldn't you look like you were running around confused a bit trying to stay away from the 3 or 4 defenders (not 1 mind you) that are breathing down your neck as you try to extend the play as long as possible hoping a WR will figure out how to come back to you?

Seriously, think about that scenario.
It happened this weekend.

Could he have done better?
Sure, but I am not sure he could have done much better other than to just tuck it and run with it a bit more than he did, but hey, that isn't running a 2 minute drill now is it....... ::)


I'm not talking during the play marr, I'm talking when we are lining up. We look like we have had out heads cut off.
We aren't poised, we are always up against the clock and we waste timeouts. Lets not even forget the fact that we punted down 2 scores with 6 mins left in the game. Who does that? He did almso tthe same thing against Tenn and it cost us the game. He is learning and progressing but he is doing so too slowly.

Alright, I will give you that but it was the whole fricken team, not just TJ.

Hell our Pro-bowl C hicked the fricken ball when the QB was making an audible/pre-snap adjusment.
By the way, Matt and Chiller admitted to it during the re-air.

By the way, am I the only guy that took the time to watch that thing?


It has already been said that if TJack was any good he would have hackey sacked that ball up into his hands and tossed a TD.

jargomcfargo
01-08-2009, 11:52 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.

Well I almost agree with you.
I don't think the Chiller would be apposed to controlling the clock, scoring on almost every posession and negating the opposing team from scoring thereby negating the necessity to score in the last 2 minutes to win....

However, with that said........

Do you honestly think that this coaching staff can't come up with a 2 minute drill for this team to execute or do you think its more along the lines that this team can't execute a two minute drill.

One lays the blame at the coaches feet alone.
The other spreads the blame across both parties and is probably a bit more realistic.

By the way, seemed they were marching down the field until the C botched a snap.
Issue with the 2 minute drill they were running or player execution?

I know what/who I wanted to execute at that point and it wasn't anyone on the sideline. ::)

What about TJ running around like he had no idea what to do next.
What about the run, incomplete pass and then run in the 2nd Quarter that gave the Eagles back the ball.
My point is when the entire offense look sliek they ahve no idea what to do next, it's the coaches. Sometimes it's the players but from what I can see, our entire team cannot execute what ever 2 min monster Chilly has drawn up.
Anyone has a youtube of the movie the Waterboy, when the Head Coach was talking about having his Qb pretend to fake. That's our 2 min drill.

Put yourself in TJ's shoes.....

You have a OL that is acting like a turnstyle.
You don't have any WR's that can get open.
You need to move the ball down field fast.

Wouldn't you look like you were running around confused a bit trying to stay away from the 3 or 4 defenders (not 1 mind you) that are breathing down your neck as you try to extend the play as long as possible hoping a WR will figure out how to come back to you?

Seriously, think about that scenario.
It happened this weekend.

Could he have done better?
Sure, but I am not sure he could have done much better other than to just tuck it and run with it a bit more than he did, but hey, that isn't running a 2 minute drill now is it....... ::)


I'm not talking during the play marr, I'm talking when we are lining up. We look like we have had out heads cut off.
We aren't poised, we are always up against the clock and we waste timeouts. Lets not even forget the fact that we punted down 2 scores with 6 mins left in the game. Who does that? He did almso tthe same thing against Tenn and it cost us the game. He is learning and progressing but he is doing so too slowly.


In between plays the players didn't seem to sense the urgency. TJ did, but was waiting for the play to get called in from the sideline. I saw him frustrated that the play wasn't coming in fast enough.
He needed to forget about the play coming in, get the team up to the line, and audible or spike the ball.
It's on the coaches as far as I'm concerned. Call two plays in the huddle and tell the players to hustle it up.

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 11:59 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We all agree that Chilly's gameplan is to control the clock and win it at the end correct. I hope you all agree because it's the garbage that mostly everyone on this board has been feeding themselves all season long. Since that's a known, how can we do so with a head coach that cannot craft/run an effective 2 min offense. I mean if our goal is to win it in the last 2 mins, we need to be the best team at the 2 min offense. Instead we are the worst and that means the Chiller's entire offensive philosophy is looney.


No no no no no! Chilly's gameplan is to establish an early lead of 3-7 points and hold onto that lead with good defense and a ball control offense. It's clear that we struggle at late game winning drives.
Hell, we don't even practice a 2-minute drill because we are supposed to be ahead by that point in the game.

Our goal is not to win it in the last two minutes. The problem is that our offense has not been a ball control offense (too many turnovers) and thus has not been effective enough, so when our defense keeps it close, our O still can't put points on the board early. This results in games where we give our offense several chances to win, but they don't get the job done.

Now people will mention, "What about all those games where we had the lead but let the other team back into it?" Most of those games we let the other team back into it with turnovers and bad ST play.

Get a lead early and hold on, that is what Chilly tries to do. You can see it with the conservative scheme, the horrid 2-minute drill, and how badly the turnovers hurt our offensive production.


Its a foolish philosphy. You want to win games, you keep sccoring until they are out of the game. When you jump up by 7 and try to run out the clock, it only gets you beat by teams that can score as illustrated by the Colts 18 points in the 4th quarter.


It certainly not more foolish than keeping the game close and hoping that you're run first offense can get you the win late.

We play in this style because that is the style that suits our talent best. He doesn't go up by 7 and run out the clock. He gets the lead and plays to his offenses strengths because you can afford to do that when you have the lead. If we came out pass happy with a 7 point lead I would be all for it if we were effective enough at passing to do it. We're not.

"You want to win games, you keep sccoring until they are out of the game." Exactly, and how does our team put points on the board? By running, limiting turnovers, and passing to catch the D off-guard. You might think it's foolish, but if we had a 7 point lead and went three-and-out after three straight TJ passes, I promise you that you would be even more upset.

seaniemck7
01-08-2009, 01:11 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 01:30 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V" wrote:


We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.

Big C
01-08-2009, 01:41 PM
I agree with your assessment about the Chilli effect on the offense. I felt it too. I think Chilly is a really good head coach. He is NOT the offensive genius he thinks he is. The sooner he understands that and lets Bevell do his own damn thing like Tomlin and Frazier the more success he will see.

Once the TJ and Ryan Cook experiments are buried next year, he has a clean slate - IF AND ONLY IF - he can keep his grubby hands out of the OCs business. As a result, his head coaching is being evaluated because of his blunders as backup-OC. If Bevell wasn't ready for OC Chilly shouldn't have hired him in the first place.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 02:25 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.

Marrdro
01-08-2009, 02:33 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.



Were the hell have you been of late my friend?
Excellent post.

Not sure if I agree with you that the team (Chiller) holds things back more.
I watch him as close as I can on TV and in most instances they show him (when you think a play is being called) he is working the sideline judge or just standing there.

With that said, that doesn't mean on the que card they don't have a set of plays they revert to if they are 7 points up, 10 points up etc based on time left in the game.
That could very well be.
Can't remember which book I read, but in one of them a coach described what that sheet contained and how they used it.

Anyway, great to see you posting again.
At least posting to the quality that gets my attention.......You know how little of that I have.
;D

tybrones87
01-08-2009, 02:36 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.

Prophet
01-08-2009, 02:46 PM
"tybrones87" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:








We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.


lmao, played them back into the game when the score was 10-9 at the half?

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 03:12 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"tybrones87" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:










We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.


lmao, played them back into the game when the score was 10-9 at the half?


That what makes it even sad. We were losing to their 2nd stringers. WHich brings me to an obviousl flaw of this staff. Half time adjustments or the lack of.

BleedinPandG
01-08-2009, 03:21 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


That what makes it even sad. We were losing to their 2nd stringers. WHich brings me to an obviousl flaw of this staff. Half time adjustments or the lack of.



So then are you going to give the staff the credit for the incredible original game plans that allowed them to get leads in games like Indy and the Giants?
What's more important... having a strong original game plan or adjusting on the fly?
Probably need both... but it doesn't seem fair to criticize one without giving credit to the other when it's deserved.

josdin00
01-08-2009, 03:33 PM
Okay, this was last brought up a few pages ago, but I did the work to compile the stats, and didn't want to not post it. Here are the offensive and defensive penalty stats from nfl.com. I combined them to get the totals, and then ranked each category from best to worst (lowest to highest). The table is sorted based on total penalty yards. Notice where the Vikings ended up. Notice who was below them.

TeamOff. Pen(rank)Off. Pen Yds(rank)Def. Pen(rank)Def. Pen Yds(rank)Tot. Pen(rank)Tot. Pen yds(rank)Buffalo Bills71253827225401143210781New England Patriots57150118186368138111372Indianapolis Colts861461986815432154311623Philadelphia Eagles74463598055934154312284New York Jets77656939322663141701112325Kansas City Chiefs788645128185883159512336Seattle Seahawks7910601681867115160612727Washington Redskins83136441180563910163912838Miami Dolphins811266914861461561671012849Houston Texans801166413818659121618132310Cincinnati Bengals7555914102277722417714136311St. Louis Rams97227181789186541118622137212Carolina Panthers94186371088167361918218137313New Orleans Saints8614797248413637917011143414Chicago Bears7886107100268272817815143715Cleveland Browns100246691495247702319524143916Atlanta Falcons7125914109288542918017144517Oakland Raiders1093082328743633718319145618San Diego Chargers9519748217847081717313145618Denver Broncos776739208312738201606147720Detroit Lions88167291891207532217916148221Tampa Bay Buccaneers95198342988166601318319149422Jacksonville Jaguars10427813268056911618421150423Dallas Cowboys11932952318715601520629155324Baltimore Ravens1032678523114327922521732157725Arizona Cardinals107287812298258162720528159726San Francisco 49ers982373219111308693120930160127Tennessee Titans108298553093227502120127160528Pittsburgh Steelers95198122591208012618622161329New York Giants1022582127111308663021331168730Minnesota Vikings9017692161092810023219925169431Green Bay Packers110319843289187211819925170532

Prophet
01-08-2009, 03:33 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"tybrones87" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:












We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.


lmao, played them back into the game when the score was 10-9 at the half?


That what makes it even sad. We were losing to their 2nd stringers. WHich brings me to an obviousl flaw of this staff. Half time adjustments or the lack of.



They led the starters at the half to the tune of 10-9.
The power of the vikings is on D and guess what, they got burnt on a screen pass.
Then the Vikings.

Since I'm really sick of Emat saying the same thing over and over and over again to the people that bring up this game....let's look at a dose of reality.
Here's every possession the Vikings O had in the second half of that game:


5-J.Carney kicks 66 yards from NYG 30 to MIN 4. 43-M.Hicks to MIN 39 for 35 yards (44-A.Bradshaw).

1-10-MIN 39
(9:21) 28-A.Peterson left tackle to MIN 38 for -1 yards (35-K.Dockery).

2-11-MIN 38
(8:45) 7-T.Jackson pass short middle to 19-B.Wade to NYG 41 for 21 yards (58-A.Pierce).

1-10-NYG 41
(8:10) 7-T.Jackson pass short left to 38-N.Tahi to NYG 39 for 2 yards (57-C.Blackburn).

2-8-NYG 39
(7:28) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to NYG 36 for 3 yards (55-D.Clark).

3-5-NYG 36
(6:46) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short right to 18-S.Rice (23-C.Webster).

4-5-NYG 36
(6:41) 5-C.Kluwe punts 36 yards to end zone, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Touchback.


A Punt.


1-10-MIN 34
(4:49) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right end to MIN 41 for 7 yards (55-D.Clark; 53-B.Kehl).

2-3-MIN 41
(4:09) 28-A.Peterson left end to MIN 43 for 2 yards (53-B.Kehl, 21-K.Phillips).

3-1-MIN 43
(3:35) 83-J.Dugan up the middle to MIN 44 for 1 yard (98-F.Robbins).

1-10-MIN 44
(3:17) 7-T.Jackson pass deep right to 19-B.Wade to NYG 15 for 41 yards (35-K.Dockery).

1-10-NYG 15
(2:47) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to NYG 9 for 6 yards (97-M.Kiwanuka, 73-J.Clark).

2-4-NYG 9
(2:11) 28-A.Peterson right end to NYG 4 for 5 yards (53-B.Kehl). NYG-29-S.Madison was injured during the play. His return is Questionable.

1-4-NYG 4
(1:38) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to NYG 6 for -2 yards (98-F.Robbins, 21-K.Phillips).

2-6-NYG 6
(:58) 7-T.Jackson pass short right INTERCEPTED by 37-J.Butler at NYG -2. 37-J.Butler pushed ob at NYG 45 for 47 yards. PENALTY on MIN-7-T.Jackson, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at NYG 45.


TJack intercepted in the endzone.


5-J.Carney kicks 50 yards from NYG 30 to MIN 20. 40-J.Kleinsasser to MIN 34 for 14 yards (71-D.Tollefson, 52-E.Miles).

1-10-MIN 34
(11:17) 7-T.Jackson pass short middle to 87-B.Berrian to MIN 46 for 12 yards (37-J.Butler).

1-10-MIN 46
(10:39) PENALTY on MIN-19-B.Wade, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at MIN 46 - No Play.

1-15-MIN 41
(10:16) 7-T.Jackson pass short left to 40-J.Kleinsasser to MIN 46 for 5 yards (24-T.Thomas; 53-B.Kehl).

2-10-MIN 46
(9:35) 7-T.Jackson pass deep left to 87-B.Berrian for 54 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

8-R.Longwell extra point is GOOD, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Holder-5-C.Kluwe.


TJack TD


1-10-MIN 38
(3:17) 7-T.Jackson pass short left to 87-B.Berrian ran ob at MIN 45 for 7 yards. PENALTY on NYG-57-C.Blackburn, Defensive Holding, 5 yards, enforced at MIN 38 - No Play.

1-10-MIN 43
(3:10) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 43 for no gain (53-B.Kehl).

2-10-MIN 43
(2:34) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 38-N.Tahi to MIN 45 for 2 yards (55-D.Clark).

3-8-MIN 45
(2:00) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 87-B.Berrian pushed ob at NYG 46 for 9 yards (35-K.Dockery).

Two-Minute Warning

1-10-NYG 46
(1:55) 28-A.Peterson left end to NYG 39 for 7 yards (35-K.Dockery; 95-J.McDougle).

2-3-NYG 39
(1:20) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to NYG 38 for 1 yard (57-C.Blackburn, 37-J.Butler).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 01:11.

3-2-NYG 38
(1:11) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to NYG 30 for 8 yards (53-B.Kehl).

1-10-NYG 30
(:36) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to NYG 32 for -2 yards (24-T.Thomas).

Timeout #3 by MIN at 00:09.

Timeout #2 by NYG at 00:09.

2-12-NYG 32
(:09) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short right to 19-B.Wade.

Timeout #3 by NYG at 00:05.

3-12-NYG 32
(:05) 8-R.Longwell 50 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Holder-5-C.Kluwe.

NYG 9

MIN 10

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:17


FG for win.

That means the Vikings had the ball four times in the second half.

1st possession: punt
2nd possession: INT in their endzone
3rd possession: TD
4th possession: FG

That is owned?
They stopped one series and TJack threw a crippling INT in another.
75% of their possessions they should have scored.
Oh yeah, they won.
They beat their first and second stringers.

How about in 2007, when the Jints won the SB.
The Vikings destroyed them in wk 12 to the tune of 42-17.

The whole Jints argument is old.
I agree that the Jints theoretically had nothing to play for, other than not matching up with the team that beat every single division champion in the NFC that plays hard-nose old school smash mouth defense in the playoffs.

There are plenty of arguments, at least use some that hold some water.

Regarding your second half adjustments.
I'm in the group that believes there is some of that going on, but it isn't as huge of a deal as some like to believe.
The primary game planning happens prior to the game and minor tweaks take place after the half.
It's not like you're going to draw up a new playbook while the fans are watching cheap beer commercials.
I'm willing to bet that if the average fan thinks they saw something on the field that warrants being exploited that the team of people that has instantaneous snapshots of every play and has personnel on the sidelines and in the skyboxes surveying the game is thinking at a level the average fan doesn't even know exists.
It's like a nobelauret in physics arguing with a freshman in a physics 101 class.

The Iggles have a team that matches up poorly with the Vikings.
When I found out they were the first matchup in the playoffs my first reaction was, "fuck!".
I would have rather played any other remaining NFC team in the first round.

Prophet
01-08-2009, 03:41 PM
"josdin00" wrote:


Okay, this was last brought up a few pages ago, but I did the work to compile the stats, and didn't want to not post it. Here are the offensive and defensive penalty stats from nfl.com. I combined them to get the totals, and then ranked each category from best to worst (lowest to highest). The table is sorted based on total penalty yards. Notice where the Vikings ended up. Notice who was below them.

TeamOff. Pen(rank)Off. Pen Yds(rank)Def. Pen(rank)Def. Pen Yds(rank)Tot. Pen(rank)Tot. Pen yds(rank)Buffalo Bills71253827225401143210781New England Patriots57150118186368138111372Indianapolis Colts861461986815432154311623Philadelphia Eagles74463598055934154312284New York Jets77656939322663141701112325Kansas City Chiefs788645128185883159512336Seattle Seahawks7910601681867115160612727Washington Redskins83136441180563910163912838Miami Dolphins811266914861461561671012849Houston Texans801166413818659121618132310Cincinnati Bengals7555914102277722417714136311St. Louis Rams97227181789186541118622137212Carolina Panthers94186371088167361918218137313New Orleans Saints8614797248413637917011143414Chicago Bears7886107100268272817815143715Cleveland Browns100246691495247702319524143916Atlanta Falcons7125914109288542918017144517Oakland Raiders1093082328743633718319145618San Diego Chargers9519748217847081717313145618Denver Broncos776739208312738201606147720Detroit Lions88167291891207532217916148221Tampa Bay Buccaneers95198342988166601318319149422Jacksonville Jaguars10427813268056911618421150423Dallas Cowboys11932952318715601520629155324Baltimore Ravens1032678523114327922521732157725Arizona Cardinals107287812298258162720528159726San Francisco 49ers982373219111308693120930160127Tennessee Titans108298553093227502120127160528Pittsburgh Steelers95198122591208012618622161329New York Giants1022582127111308663021331168730Minnesota Vikings9017692161092810023219925169431Green Bay Packers110319843289187211819925170532



Nice work Josdin.

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 04:46 PM
Great work Josdin.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 04:47 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"tybrones87" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:












We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.


lmao, played them back into the game when the score was 10-9 at the half?


That what makes it even sad. We were losing to their 2nd stringers. WHich brings me to an obviousl flaw of this staff. Half time adjustments or the lack of.



What is amazing to me is the fact you continue to leave out the fact the Vikings were ahead in the 1st half against their starters.
Not only that but Prophet shows you how the Vikings did on offense in the 2nd half and to quite frank the 1st possession the Vikings had when they punted was still against the first string.
They did play some of the 2nd half.
Also, I will say it for the 10th time it seems that the same "2nd string" as you want to call them play in every game as rotational players.
It would be like Robison playing for Edwards as an example.
What is it you fail to understand that the 2nd string team in the pros doesn't mean they are bad players.

jargomcfargo
01-08-2009, 04:47 PM
I annoit EJmat the persistant defender. For that I'm greatful.

Besides, it doesn't matter what you say to some of these guys. Their calvarium is inpenetrable.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 04:59 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"tybrones87" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:














We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.


lmao, played them back into the game when the score was 10-9 at the half?


That what makes it even sad. We were losing to their 2nd stringers. WHich brings me to an obviousl flaw of this staff. Half time adjustments or the lack of.



What is amazing to me is the fact you continue to leave out the fact the Vikings were ahead in the 1st half against their starters.
Not only that but Prophet shows you how the Vikings did on offense in the 2nd half and to quite frank the 1st possession the Vikings had when they punted was still against the first string.
They did play some of the 2nd half.
Also, I will say it for the 10th time it seems that the same "2nd string" as you want to call them play in every game as rotational players.
It would be like Robison playing for Edwards as an example.
What is it you fail to understand that the 2nd string team in the pros doesn't mean they are bad players.


You chose robinson as an example? The same Robinson whose side they decided to run the game winning screen on? He is a pass rushign specialist.
The same side where our T. Johnson, who had plenty of playing time this season played? I wonder why they targeted that side. Could it be that our 2nd string was in and it was in? That is my point. Even those these guys were rotating they were rotataing in situations that they can be used. Having them play the entire game is an entirely different situation.

I am not ignoring that we were up by 1 point going in to the half. Hello, we were up by 15 against the Colts. 1 of our biggest weak points is coaching and in game adjustments. This is what the thread is about. Are you really saying that you would have rathered their first stringers stay in? They did us a faavor by pulling their starters, it made it easier for us and we still almost blew it. If David Carr was able to torch us, do you really think Eli wouldn't have? This is about coaching and the fact that their 2nd string out played our 1st string is screams that we were out coached that game. I can't beleive anyone is excited about that win? It was a give away!

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 05:07 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:



We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Actually, we made the playoffs because we won 3 out of 4, beating a playoff team and our main competition within the NFC North, BEFORE the Giants game.

We could have lost the Giants game and still made the playoffs, which makes your statement completely wrong, but hey, if that had happened, you would be sitting here whining about how we couldn't even beat second stringers and that we backed into the playoffs.

So knowing that you would be whining whether we beat the Giants second stringers or not, I'm pretty happy that we did.

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 05:14 PM
"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:



We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Actually, we made the playoffs because we won 3 out of 4, beating a playoff team and our main competition within the NFC North, BEFORE the Giants game.

We could have lost the Giants game and still made the playoffs, which makes your statement completely wrong, but hey, if that had happened, you would be sitting here whining about how we couldn't even beat second stringers and that we backed into the playoffs.

So knowing that you would be whining whether we beat the Giants second stringers or not, I'm pretty happy that we did.


You should assume that I would care how we got into the playoffs. I would never whine about backing in. The topic of this thread is.....Coaching failures hurt the Vikings’ potential
And they have. Someone said that we came back in a game and used a game against a couple 2nd string players as evidence of this. That is as tainted as a win can be. We didn't come back, we were let back into the game. This has nothing to do with making the playoffs or not. It has everything with not thinking we came back against the best the Giants could put on the field that day. So please for give me if I don't annoint Childress the saviour because of him getting us back into a game. We were winning and he lost the lead to the Gmen 2nd string team. Not just the lead but 2 scores.

V-Unit
01-08-2009, 07:34 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:



We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Actually, we made the playoffs because we won 3 out of 4, beating a playoff team and our main competition within the NFC North, BEFORE the Giants game.

We could have lost the Giants game and still made the playoffs, which makes your statement completely wrong, but hey, if that had happened, you would be sitting here whining about how we couldn't even beat second stringers and that we backed into the playoffs.

So knowing that you would be whining whether we beat the Giants second stringers or not, I'm pretty happy that we did.


You should assume that I would care how we got into the playoffs. I would never whine about backing in. The topic of this thread is.....Coaching failures hurt the Vikings’ potential
And they have. Someone said that we came back in a game and used a game against a couple 2nd string players as evidence of this. That is as tainted as a win can be. We didn't come back, we were let back into the game. This has nothing to do with making the playoffs or not. It has everything with not thinking we came back against the best the Giants could put on the field that day. So please for give me if I don't annoint Childress the saviour because of him getting us back into a game. We were winning and he lost the lead to the Gmen 2nd string team. Not just the lead but 2 scores.


????

kevoncox
01-08-2009, 08:00 PM
"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:



We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Actually, we made the playoffs because we won 3 out of 4, beating a playoff team and our main competition within the NFC North, BEFORE the Giants game.

We could have lost the Giants game and still made the playoffs, which makes your statement completely wrong, but hey, if that had happened, you would be sitting here whining about how we couldn't even beat second stringers and that we backed into the playoffs.

So knowing that you would be whining whether we beat the Giants second stringers or not, I'm pretty happy that we did.


You should assume that I would care how we got into the playoffs. I would never whine about backing in. The topic of this thread is.....Coaching failures hurt the Vikings’ potential
And they have. Someone said that we came back in a game and used a game against a couple 2nd string players as evidence of this. That is as tainted as a win can be. We didn't come back, we were let back into the game. This has nothing to do with making the playoffs or not. It has everything with not thinking we came back against the best the Giants could put on the field that day. So please for give me if I don't annoint Childress the saviour because of him getting us back into a game. We were winning and he lost the lead to the Gmen 2nd string team. Not just the lead but 2 scores.


????


You missed who I was replying too. It's easy to lose what someone is talking about when you only quote responses.

jorgie
01-08-2009, 08:18 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



In true Denny Green form, Brad Childress has offered less-than-candid explanations to questionable coaching moves.
And therein lies the rub.........

As with Denny, the Chiller doesn't just open the door for these cats and in turn they treat him like pooh.
Maybe guys like the author need to get thier fat dimply buttocks out of the office chairs and go out and do some actual reporting instead of wishing the HC will feed them info with the golden spoon.


I like to think it's the fact that he refuses to admit he made a mistake and rather places blame on the players.
I think the fact that we cannot run a 2 min offense is clear that he isn't a great coach. THe 49ers run a better 2 min drill that we do.



The Vikings have a 2 minute drill?
I can't remember seeing it.


Of course they do, that's when they all stand there trying to figure out which end is up.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 08:35 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


I annoit EJmat the persistant defender. For that I'm greatful.

Besides, it doesn't matter what you say to some of these guys. Their calvarium is inpenetrable.


Thanks Jargon.
I appreciate it.
I hear what you are saying.
The black and white rationalizations are pretty comical sometimes.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 08:43 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"tybrones87" wrote:
















We lost EJ for the year, MWill for 7 games, McKinnie for 4, PWill for 2, and were still able to win the division. Winning by default my jiggly butt. Every team has hurdles to overcome during the season. There was a 3 way tie after 10 games, and we won when we had to, going 4-1 down the stretch while the Packers tanked (you suggest that Favregate got worse as the season went on). The win against the Bears was the main difference, a must win and we won it. Our team went out there and won this division, it wasn't given to them.

Are there still problems? Of course. Does it mainly rely on the coaching staff? I'll agree with you there. Things like penalties, turnovers, hurry-up offense, special teams, we all agree that those are areas for concern. However, there is coach calling those long AD runs, JA stunts that lead to sacks, a rollout passes to Shank for TDs. To suggest that talent leads to all of our wins and coaching leads to all of our losses is bull. How do you explain the ATL game?

I don't envision 8-10 wins as success. I see it for what it is when looking at the big picture: A step in the right direction. If we were coming off a 12-4 record and Superbowl loss in 2007, then my thoughts of this year would be much different. This team is steadily getting better and there is little reason to think it won't be even better next year so long as we have another productive offseason (as our last 3 have been).

I think you are right that we could be better with a better coach. Chilldress is not the best coach by any means. Problem is, he has built this team in his style, but a different coach might have a different style and might get worse results out of this team even if he is a better coach. We have firsthand experience with that, when the better coach (Chilly) took over the team but got worse results. It's to the point where people actually argue that Tice was a better coach than Chilly.

Now I will give you this: If we had signed a better coach instead of Chilly, this team would be better than it is now. I don't however, think that a coaching change will provide instant success, unless it comes from the inside (Tomlin/Frazier).

If we booted Frazier and promoted Chiller, do you think things would improve? Does he keep Bevell at OC or bring in someone else?

Everyonce in awhile you come up with a gem that I can find no fault with.
This My Sexy Little Pixie, is one of them....... ;D


I found fault. He meant boot Chiller & promote Frazier.
;)

I think the key is to get a real OC in here & for the HC to leave him alone to do what an OC does best with little interference.

Teams aren't banging down the door to interview Bevell are they?

I don't agree with that, I just understood his rationale.

As to Bevell, I am still not sure he is the problem (he is an EX PUKER by the way so my opinion of him should be alot lower than it is).
After watching the game last night he had some real nice twists in there, called a pretty decent game.

Hell, even dipshit commented on how well our Offense was doing with respect to dictating to the defense a bit in the game.

Give this offense a OL that can pass block as well (or gol 'darnit close to it) as they can run block and I think Bevells game plans will be sweet.


Well to get this back on track...

Marr, you bring up a good point about Bevell throwing some nice twists in the play calling (after further review).
IMHO though that was mostly in the first half... when we looked good.
The 2nd half its was a different story.

Now I will preface this by saying: this is all speculation.
However, my issue is that Bevell lacks the juice to tell Childress to stfu and stay out of the offense.
Early in the game, we seem to play loose.

I can see it in players demeanor and truthfully our playcalling.
Take TJack for example.
That "Deer in Headlights" comment from people could not possibly be coming from the start of the game and/or the first half.
TJ looked good even after the Pick6, the drove down the field for a score.
There seems to be no titis itis from TJ (or the team) until the second half.


I swear I can almost feel it during the game when Chilly interjects to pull in the reigns and go into Conservative mode.
Its like we have flashes of majic in the offense, then Chilly reaches out and blackfingers the momentum with play calling that we have seen for the past 2 years.

Does anyone else get that sensation?
Does anyone start screaming at the TV/Field of play saying, "That is why Reid NEVER let you call plays!!!"
In the 2nd half, did anyone not get that feeling of "here we go, 3andP time"?
Really its like we go into lock down mode which directly effects how TJ (and the offense) plays/performs.
I truly believe it is Chilly influencing Bevell to call plays his way.
Because Bevell has no backbone, juice, balls, right, whatever you want to call it, to tell Chilly to pound sand, we fall into the "lets not loose the game" mentality instead of "lets take this win, now".

I like how Chilly and Co have built this team.
I even like our offensive philosophy for the most part.
However I think its time that we bring in someone fresh, offensively to take Chilly's concepts and get creative with them.
If we are destined to keep Bevell, maybe an offensive consultant, as someone mentioned, can be brought in to tweak Chilly's concepts with our the strenghts of our players.
floop we have the best RB combo in the league.
Run an F-ing WildCat package with Taylor and AD.
Hell TJ is athletice enough to run it.
Put in a QB draw for crying out loud (Cassell ran in like 3 TDs this year with that).

TJ had 2 runs in that playoff game btw.
Who doesn't Like our TE's with Shank emerging this year?
Run a gol 'darnit
TE screen or bunch formation... something sheesh.

This is not meant to be a playcalling rant, and I think I got off of my original thought process.

Anyhow, the bottom line is Chilly needs to Macro-manage the TEAM not Micro-manage the offense.




Great post and I like your objectivity.
As you said, a lot of what you said is speculation so it's difficult to determine what is really going on and why they went on lockdown as you put it.
You are correct and I was getting aggrivated in the 2nd half as well.
I don't know what caused the change in the game plan other than they were most likely (speculation) trying to bust a good run to offset Philly's blitzes.
It wasn't working thus TJ then began throwing passes deparately and off his back heels because he began to panic.

I do like the direction this team is going and I would like another year with the same people in charge other than a couple of exceptions.
With a couple of off season pick ups hopefully this team will be a SB contending team.


What remains to crack me up though are all the Chldress haters that tried to say they didn't live up to expectations are the ones stating at the beginning of the year they will never win the division or have a winning record.
Even though they surpassed their pre-season expectations they continue to bash the direction the team is taken.


We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Huh... Forgetting the fact that the Giants second stringers played better than their starters? We went into halftime with a lead against their starters, and the backups played them back into the game.


lmao, played them back into the game when the score was 10-9 at the half?


That what makes it even sad. We were losing to their 2nd stringers. WHich brings me to an obviousl flaw of this staff. Half time adjustments or the lack of.



What is amazing to me is the fact you continue to leave out the fact the Vikings were ahead in the 1st half against their starters.
Not only that but Prophet shows you how the Vikings did on offense in the 2nd half and to quite frank the 1st possession the Vikings had when they punted was still against the first string.
They did play some of the 2nd half.
Also, I will say it for the 10th time it seems that the same "2nd string" as you want to call them play in every game as rotational players.
It would be like Robison playing for Edwards as an example.
What is it you fail to understand that the 2nd string team in the pros doesn't mean they are bad players.


You chose robinson as an example? The same Robinson whose side they decided to run the game winning screen on? He is a pass rushign specialist.
The same side where our T. Johnson, who had plenty of playing time this season played? I wonder why they targeted that side. Could it be that our 2nd string was in and it was in? That is my point. Even those these guys were rotating they were rotataing in situations that they can be used. Having them play the entire game is an entirely different situation.

I am not ignoring that we were up by 1 point going in to the half. Hello, we were up by 15 against the Colts. 1 of our biggest weak points is coaching and in game adjustments. This is what the thread is about. Are you really saying that you would have rathered their first stringers stay in? They did us a faavor by pulling their starters, it made it easier for us and we still almost blew it. If David Carr was able to torch us, do you really think Eli wouldn't have? This is about coaching and the fact that their 2nd string out played our 1st string is screams that we were out coached that game. I can't beleive anyone is excited about that win? It was a give away!



The fact that the same Robison was rushing the QB made it pretty impossible for him to make that play first of all.
Second of all one play doesn't say how a guy plays in the entire game.
3rd of all, I didn't use Robison as an example of being a stud in the first place.
I used him as an example of someone who rotates and gets action.
Meaning they play every game and contribute well.


By the what is your problem with David Carr?
Are you judging a guy that never had a front line to block for him?
Again part of the intangeables of the game (not a black and white of someone that lost their starting job).
Any QB would have been booed out of Houston with that front line.
Carr with time can pick people apart.
He proved that when he threw for over 3500 yards one year even though he was sacked every other play (exxageration).


The reason why we are excited about that win is because they showed they can comeback and win a game in the final seconds.
It may not have been against the starters but it was against people that have had a significant amount of playing time for the #1 fucking seed in the NFC.

It's obvious you really don't know the intangeables of football.
You look at things as black and white and that's just the way it is.
Football has so many variables that are factored in a game for you to make the assessments you are trying to make.

ejmat
01-08-2009, 08:45 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:



We made the playoffs because the Giants put thir 2nd string in. Hell even then, they were beating us by 9. We won because they had nothing to play for.



Actually, we made the playoffs because we won 3 out of 4, beating a playoff team and our main competition within the NFC North, BEFORE the Giants game.

We could have lost the Giants game and still made the playoffs, which makes your statement completely wrong, but hey, if that had happened, you would be sitting here whining about how we couldn't even beat second stringers and that we backed into the playoffs.

So knowing that you would be whining whether we beat the Giants second stringers or not, I'm pretty happy that we did.


You should assume that I would care how we got into the playoffs. I would never whine about backing in. The topic of this thread is.....Coaching failures hurt the Vikings’ potential
And they have. Someone said that we came back in a game and used a game against a couple 2nd string players as evidence of this. That is as tainted as a win can be. We didn't come back, we were let back into the game. This has nothing to do with making the playoffs or not. It has everything with not thinking we came back against the best the Giants could put on the field that day. So please for give me if I don't annoint Childress the saviour because of him getting us back into a game. We were winning and he lost the lead to the Gmen 2nd string team. Not just the lead but 2 scores.


After several pages of drivel regarding how you brought up the fact we almost lost to the Giants now you want to get back on track.

No one is asking you to annoint anyone.
Just look at the factors within the game and don't see things as black and white.
Comical!!!!!!

Marrdro
01-09-2009, 08:43 AM
"josdin00" wrote:


Okay, this was last brought up a few pages ago, but I did the work to compile the stats, and didn't want to not post it. Here are the offensive and defensive penalty stats from nfl.com. I combined them to get the totals, and then ranked each category from best to worst (lowest to highest). The table is sorted based on total penalty yards. Notice where the Vikings ended up. Notice who was below them.

TeamOff. Pen(rank)Off. Pen Yds(rank)Def. Pen(rank)Def. Pen Yds(rank)Tot. Pen(rank)Tot. Pen yds(rank)Buffalo Bills71253827225401143210781New England Patriots57150118186368138111372Indianapolis Colts861461986815432154311623Philadelphia Eagles74463598055934154312284New York Jets77656939322663141701112325Kansas City Chiefs788645128185883159512336Seattle Seahawks7910601681867115160612727Washington Redskins83136441180563910163912838Miami Dolphins811266914861461561671012849Houston Texans801166413818659121618132310Cincinnati Bengals7555914102277722417714136311St. Louis Rams97227181789186541118622137212Carolina Panthers94186371088167361918218137313New Orleans Saints8614797248413637917011143414Chicago Bears7886107100268272817815143715Cleveland Browns100246691495247702319524143916Atlanta Falcons7125914109288542918017144517Oakland Raiders1093082328743633718319145618San Diego Chargers9519748217847081717313145618Denver Broncos776739208312738201606147720Detroit Lions88167291891207532217916148221Tampa Bay Buccaneers95198342988166601318319149422Jacksonville Jaguars10427813268056911618421150423Dallas Cowboys11932952318715601520629155324Baltimore Ravens1032678523114327922521732157725Arizona Cardinals107287812298258162720528159726San Francisco 49ers982373219111308693120930160127Tennessee Titans108298553093227502120127160528Pittsburgh Steelers95198122591208012618622161329New York Giants1022582127111308663021331168730Minnesota Vikings9017692161092810023219925169431Green Bay Packers110319843289187211819925170532


Did you use the "Insert Table/Column" or just the "Insert Table" function for that and what page did you get the stats from?

Regardless of how you did it, that is some great stuff my friend. ;D

jargomcfargo
01-09-2009, 10:10 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:





It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36



Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.


McCauley's a waste of carbon.
Come back soon Chuck!

=Z=


I agree. But after looking at it again last night, McCauley should have had safety help over the top. It was Johnson who wasn't there.
I'm beginning to wonder about Johnson. Guess I'll give him the rookie pass.

bleedpurple
01-09-2009, 10:12 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:







It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36



Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.


McCauley's a waste of carbon.
Come back soon Chuck!

=Z=


I agree. But after looking at it again last night, McCauley should have had safety help over the top. It was Johnson who wasn't there.
I'm beginning to wonder about Johnson. Guess I'll give him the rookie pass.



you can give him a rookie pass, but i wouldn't feel comfortable with him as a starter going into next season... look at how much better the our secondary was when Madieu and Sharper were playing back there together... it's like night and day!

kevoncox
01-09-2009, 11:21 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


The fact that the same Robison was rushing the QB made it pretty impossible for him to make that play first of all.
Second of all one play doesn't say how a guy plays in the entire game.
3rd of all, I didn't use Robison as an example of being a stud in the first place.
I used him as an example of someone who rotates and gets action.
Meaning they play every game and contribute well.


By the what is your problem with David Carr?
Are you judging a guy that never had a front line to block for him?
Again part of the intangeables of the game (not a black and white of someone that lost their starting job).
Any QB would have been booed out of Houston with that front line.
Carr with time can pick people apart.
He proved that when he threw for over 3500 yards one year even though he was sacked every other play (exxageration).


The reason why we are excited about that win is because they showed they can comeback and win a game in the final seconds.
It may not have been against the starters but it was against people that have had a significant amount of playing time for the #1 fricken seed in the NFC.

It's obvious you really don't know the intangeables of football.
You look at things as black and white and that's just the way it is.
Football has so many variables that are factored in a game for you to make the assessments you are trying to make.


That statment right there makes me realize that you have no idea what you are talking about and that I am wasting my time. To rap this up neatly, DEs and Dts on the play said of a screen are suppose to squeeze down the line when they feel no pressure from the TE, RT.
He didn't. However, the fact that they ran it to his side as oppsed to Allens side, tells me that they felt that him combined with Johnson at saftey, could net them some yardage on that play. The drop off in talent from a 1st stringer to a 2nd stringer is noticable.

I don't look at things as black and white. However, when you or who ever brought up the fact that Chilly made great leaps in his coaching growth because we came backa gaisnt the GMen, I feel obligated to put an * next to that " comeback victory". Enjoy it it was amazing, the way we needed them to miss a FG with 3 mins left to win the game.

All I have every said was that you shouldn't use that game as claim to Chilly came back from anything. If he is the coach you think he is use another example. Surely, you have more examples of his greatness. Shut me up with them? Show me where he has done it against starters. He is an average coach who is as inconsitant as this teams QB. We have taken steps this year, however, they are baby steps and in the right hands, this team could win a title.

kevoncox
01-09-2009, 11:26 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:









It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36



Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.


McCauley's a waste of carbon.
Come back soon Chuck!

=Z=


I agree. But after looking at it again last night, McCauley should have had safety help over the top. It was Johnson who wasn't there.
I'm beginning to wonder about Johnson. Guess I'll give him the rookie pass.



you can give him a rookie pass, but i wouldn't feel comfortable with him as a starter going into next season... look at how much better the our secondary was when Madieu and Sharper were playing back there together... it's like night and day!


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.

jargomcfargo
01-09-2009, 11:37 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:









It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.

If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36



Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.


McCauley's a waste of carbon.
Come back soon Chuck!

=Z=


I agree. But after looking at it again last night, McCauley should have had safety help over the top. It was Johnson who wasn't there.
I'm beginning to wonder about Johnson. Guess I'll give him the rookie pass.



you can give him a rookie pass, but i wouldn't feel comfortable with him as a starter going into next season... look at how much better the our secondary was when Madieu and Sharper were playing back there together... it's like night and day!


I agree 100%. I'm just giving the rookie pass in the hope that he improves. But in reality, i think we actually need to keep Sharper and draft someone else.

Purple Floyd
01-09-2009, 11:57 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:











It’s hard for the players to exhibit confidence when the coaches can’t figure out what they want to do.

Again.... sigh...

At least someone else understands.

I counted at least 3 times, 2 definately that Leslie was late getting in the call.
If I'm not mistaken, 2 timeouts were taken on the defensive side of the ball.

Fire Leslie...... ;D


That's right. And McCauley got burned again for a long TD right after the timeout. Didn't help much did it.


Sorry, Doc - but I'm usually lock-step with you on your stuff, but this one is just wrong.
Here are the two defensive timeouts that the Vikings took in the 1st half on Sunday....both were on drives that ended in FGs.

Philadelphia Eagles at 02:36

1-10-PHI 25
(2:36) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 84-H.Baskett to PHI 32 for 7 yards (26-A.Winfield).

2-3-PHI 32
(1:55) 28-C.Buckhalter right end pushed ob at MIN 41 for 27 yards (51-B.Leber).

1-10-MIN 41
(1:30) 28-C.Buckhalter right guard to MIN 41 for no gain (93-K.Williams, 96-B.Robison).

2-10-MIN 41
(:49) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 86-R.Brown to MIN 33 for 8 yards (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:06.

3-2-MIN 33
(:06) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to 36-B.Westbrook.

4-2-MIN 33
(:02) 2-D.Akers 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 6

MIN 0

Plays: 6

Possession: 2:36


Philadelphia Eagles at 11:05

8-R.Longwell kicks 57 yards from MIN 30 to PHI 13. 39-Q.Demps to PHI 28 for 15 yards (22-B.Sapp).

1-10-PHI 28
(10:59) 36-B.Westbrook right end to PHI 28 for no gain (26-A.Winfield). MIN-42-D.Sharper was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

2-10-PHI 28
(10:32) 5-D.McNabb pass short left to 80-K.Curtis to PHI 40 for 12 yards (23-C.Griffin).

1-10-PHI 40
(9:57) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Jackson (26-A.Winfield).

Timeout #2 by MIN at 09:53.

2-10-PHI 40
(9:53) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass short right to 81-J.Avant pushed ob at PHI 45 for 5 yards (26-A.Winfield).

3-5-PHI 45
(9:27) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass deep right to 10-D.Jackson ran ob at MIN 21 for 34 yards.

1-10-MIN 21
(8:59) 36-B.Westbrook right tackle to MIN 18 for 3 yards (90-F.Evans).

2-7-MIN 18
(8:19) (Shotgun) 36-B.Westbrook left guard to MIN 13 for 5 yards (51-B.Leber).

3-2-MIN 13
(7:38) (Shotgun) 5-D.McNabb pass incomplete short left to 80-K.Curtis.

4-2-MIN 13
(7:38) 2-D.Akers 31 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Dorenbos, Holder-6-S.Rocca.

PHI 9

MIN 7

Plays: 9

Possession: 3:36



Your right. I was thinking of the second timeout. But it was the second play after the time out where they gained 34 yards that led to a field goal.
I stand corrected.


McCauley's a waste of carbon.
Come back soon Chuck!

=Z=


I agree. But after looking at it again last night, McCauley should have had safety help over the top. It was Johnson who wasn't there.
I'm beginning to wonder about Johnson. Guess I'll give him the rookie pass.



you can give him a rookie pass, but i wouldn't feel comfortable with him as a starter going into next season... look at how much better the our secondary was when Madieu and Sharper were playing back there together... it's like night and day!


I agree 100%. I'm just giving the rookie pass in the hope that he improves. But in reality, i think we actually need to keep Sharper and draft someone else.


I haven't been a big fan of the way the staff have developed some of their players but I do have more faith in the defense being able to do it than the offense. Johnson was rated pretty high among safeties and I certainly hope he pans out. I am wiling to put my faith in him developing in the off season and coming into camp prepared to become the star he has the capability to be. I just hope we don't whiff on the next coordinator if Frazier leaves.

mountainviking
01-09-2009, 12:06 PM
Nice work Josdin!
Thanks!!

Zeus
01-09-2009, 01:43 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=

i_bleed_purple
01-09-2009, 01:49 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his ass.

VikingMike
01-09-2009, 02:05 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his ass.


I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY

Prophet
01-09-2009, 03:47 PM
"VikingMike" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his ass.


I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



I agree VM, that happens.
Maybe someday AD will have the complete package of skills like Westbrook.
That was a beautiful play that was executed to perfection and Westbrook used his skills to finish it off.
Puts a knife in my heart.
What's funny is that when AD makes a play like that you rarely hear anything about their defense sucking ass, it's just the greatness of AD.

bleedpurple
01-09-2009, 03:51 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his jiggly butt.


I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



I agree VM, that happens.
Maybe someday AD will have the complete package of skills like Westbrook.
That was a beautiful play that was executed to perfection and Westbrook used his skills to finish it off.
Puts a knife in my heart.
What's funny is that when AD makes a play like that you rarely hear anything about their defense sucking jiggly butt, it's just the greatness of AD.
'

yeah that was a back breaker, but for some godforsaken reason, i still held out hope... thought we could pull it off... I must be an idiot!!.. as if i don't hold enough vikings meltdown's at the dome in the playoffs, in my pandora's box of memories!!! skol!!!

Purple Floyd
01-09-2009, 03:59 PM
"VikingMike" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his ass.


I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



As soon as I saw Mcnabb cock his arm back and saw all of the green jerseys behind the purple ones I said to my wife "This is not going to end well". IMO that was a well designed and executed play where everything went right for Philly.

kevoncox
01-09-2009, 04:30 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his jiggly butt.


Yes you can. If A DE or DT is feeling that they are getting thru too easy, they are taught to break down and decipher the play. The reason a screen typically goes for big yardage is because the offense was sucess ful in getting Bigs( OL) on smalls (DBs).To say You can't pin it on them goes against most defensive players instincts. If it is too easy, you are being fooled. Great defenesive players reconize this and get to the ball. The best way to blow up the screen is to interupt the timing of the Qb and Rb pass. This is done most effectively with a batted ball or a DE, reconizing the play and breaking it up.


When you have OL on Lbs and Cbs, you have already lost the war. Some will make a great play and stop the play but the object is to stay home. The screen trickery used in the screen, is the equivelant to flashing a rweally good playaction sell and
a Hb reverse. It's all about deception and making the defense focus on what they see and not thier instincts. So if you have a screen go the distance, the first f*ck up goes to the DL for not feeling the trap. After that it filters down hill.

kevoncox
01-09-2009, 04:35 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


You couldn't put Robison and Robinson together and figure out they were the same person. Or were you just trying to be a smart a$$ by pointing out a common mistake that half of this board makes.
::)
::)
::)
You are better than this...

V4L
01-09-2009, 07:17 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his jiggly butt.


Yes you can. If A DE or DT is feeling that they are getting thru too easy, they are taught to break down and decipher the play. The reason a screen typically goes for big yardage is because the offense was sucess ful in getting Bigs( OL) on smalls (DBs).To say You can't pin it on them goes against most defensive players instincts. If it is too easy, you are being fooled. Great defenesive players reconize this and get to the ball. The best way to blow up the screen is to interupt the timing of the Qb and Rb pass. This is done most effectively with a batted ball or a DE, reconizing the play and breaking it up.


When you have OL on Lbs and Cbs, you have already lost the war. Some will make a great play and stop the play but the object is to stay home. The screen trickery used in the screen, is the equivelant to flashing a rweally good playaction sell and
a Hb reverse. It's all about deception and making the defense focus on what they see and not thier instincts. So if you have a screen go the distance, the first f*ck up goes to the DL for not feeling the trap. After that it filters down hill.



This is true

95 percent of the time if the DL reads the play correctly it won't go for far

Otherwise it's gonna get ya big yards

If you can get your lineman down field blocking a corner or safety you are in good water.. If the DE or DT (ive seen kevin and pat run these things down like man) sniffs out the play and gets over it blows up the whole thing..

Robison is a speed rusher and they used this to their advantage on that play.. He gets a good jump off the line and Westbrook slipped out.. McNabb back pedeled a bit and dumped it off.. NO DT OR DE there to stop it

They got blocks on Winny and a LB and Griff down field.. Greenway had a bad angle like some mentioned and I can't remember where Johnson was

Both of u guys are right.. Had Robison sniffed out the play and got over to take a blocker we wouldn't have gave that up.. They had all of thier blockers on other guys and that took them there

ejmat
01-10-2009, 09:37 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


The fact that the same Robison was rushing the QB made it pretty impossible for him to make that play first of all.
Second of all one play doesn't say how a guy plays in the entire game.
3rd of all, I didn't use Robison as an example of being a stud in the first place.
I used him as an example of someone who rotates and gets action.
Meaning they play every game and contribute well.


By the what is your problem with David Carr?
Are you judging a guy that never had a front line to block for him?
Again part of the intangeables of the game (not a black and white of someone that lost their starting job).
Any QB would have been booed out of Houston with that front line.
Carr with time can pick people apart.
He proved that when he threw for over 3500 yards one year even though he was sacked every other play (exxageration).


The reason why we are excited about that win is because they showed they can comeback and win a game in the final seconds.
It may not have been against the starters but it was against people that have had a significant amount of playing time for the #1 fricken seed in the NFC.

It's obvious you really don't know the intangeables of football.
You look at things as black and white and that's just the way it is.
Football has so many variables that are factored in a game for you to make the assessments you are trying to make.


That statment right there makes me realize that you have no idea what you are talking about and that I am wasting my time. To rap this up neatly, DEs and Dts on the play said of a screen are suppose to squeeze down the line when they feel no pressure from the TE, RT.
He didn't. However, the fact that they ran it to his side as oppsed to Allens side, tells me that they felt that him combined with Johnson at saftey, could net them some yardage on that play. The drop off in talent from a 1st stringer to a 2nd stringer is noticable.

I don't look at things as black and white. However, when you or who ever brought up the fact that Chilly made great leaps in his coaching growth because we came backa gaisnt the GMen, I feel obligated to put an * next to that " comeback victory". Enjoy it it was amazing, the way we needed them to miss a FG with 3 mins left to win the game.

All I have every said was that you shouldn't use that game as claim to Chilly came back from anything. If he is the coach you think he is use another example. Surely, you have more examples of his greatness. Shut me up with them? Show me where he has done it against starters. He is an average coach who is as inconsitant as this teams QB. We have taken steps this year, however, they are baby steps and in the right hands, this team could win a title.



You are kidding me right?
This statement coming from the same person that sees things in football as black and white.
I know what a DE is supposed to do.
That doesn't mean he read the play correctly.
That also doesn't mean he's a bad player.


If you think we or anyone is basing Chilly's growth on one win you are crazy.
I have said on many occasions it was more than the win against the Giants.
Too many times to reiterate it so I will not do it again.
Go back a few pages on this thread alone to look at how I or others think Chilly has improved.
No one annointed him as a God but we also understand he isn't anywhere near as bad as you and a few others are making him out to be.
Please don't come at me with questions about things I have answered several times.
Give me a break.

Get your crap straight before trying to add more spew.

Marrdro
01-10-2009, 09:40 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


I annoit EJmat the persistant defender. For that I'm greatful.

Besides, it doesn't matter what you say to some of these guys. Their calvarium is inpenetrable.


Thanks Jargon.
I appreciate it.
I hear what you are saying.
The black and white rationalizations are pretty comical sometimes.

Guys that use big words I don't understand just crack me up.
;D
;D
;D
;D

Prophet
01-10-2009, 03:00 PM
.
lQtbzkT4iQE

singersp
01-10-2009, 03:20 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of people here that deem a player a "bust" or a "beast" based on 1 fucking play.

Prophet
01-10-2009, 03:26 PM
"singersp" wrote:


It never ceases to amaze me at the number of people here that deem a player a "bust" or a "beast" based on 1 fucking play.


Walter Thomas sucks. (http://www.operationsports.com/forums/pro-football/206427-shortest-nfl-career-history.html)

singersp
01-10-2009, 03:38 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


It never ceases to amaze me at the number of people here that deem a player a "bust" or a "beast" based on 1 fucking play.


Walter Thomas sucks. (http://www.operationsports.com/forums/pro-football/206427-shortest-nfl-career-history.html)


LOL

Tony Mandarich is the first name that pops into my head.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1992/0928_large.jpg

V4L
01-10-2009, 03:41 PM
Steroids

vikings_fan66
01-10-2009, 03:42 PM
"singersp" wrote:


It never ceases to amaze me at the number of people here that deem a player a "bust" or a "beast" based on 1 fricken play.


This is so true singer. It's hillarous when people do that a guy makes a bad play and then thats all they reference in their opinion of that player

VikingMike
01-10-2009, 03:53 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


JOhnson was responsbile for 3- 4 completions. They specifically when at him and I believe the screen that won the game was called because they knew Robinson would fire up field and Johnson would be an easiser target than Madieu. During the game I wished we switched Johnson and Williams so that Williams and
Winfield were together and Griffen and Johnson were together. However, I think the coaching staff felt that Winfield's Vetran knowledge would aid Johnson more.


Who's Robinson?

And, according to Leslie Frazier on KFAN earlier this week with PA, that screen went the distance because a couple of Vikings (Greenway, for one) took bad angles at Westbrook when going in for the tackle.

=Z=


yep, you can't pin a screen on linemen, in case you didn't know, the purpose of a screen is for the oline to pretend to whiff on their block, let the linemen into the backfield, then hit the rb behind the line with a wall of blockers. both sharper and greenway took bad angles from what I could see.
Griffin got knocked on his ass.


I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



I agree VM, that happens.
Maybe someday AD will have the complete package of skills like Westbrook.
That was a beautiful play that was executed to perfection and Westbrook used his skills to finish it off.
Puts a knife in my heart.
What's funny is that when AD makes a play like that you rarely hear anything about their defense sucking ass, it's just the greatness of AD.



That's true. I heard people saying that Greenway looked bad too on the play. Sometimes it just happens...but I'm proud of the way our D played.

singersp
01-10-2009, 04:02 PM
"VikingMike" wrote:



I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.

singersp
01-10-2009, 04:05 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


I agree VM, that happens.
Maybe someday AD will have the complete package of skills like Westbrook.
That was a beautiful play that was executed to perfection and Westbrook used his skills to finish it off.
Puts a knife in my heart.
What's funny is that when AD makes a play like that you rarely hear anything about their defense sucking ass, it's just the greatness of AD.


Wouldn't AD have to be able to catch that pass first?

:P

jessejames09
01-10-2009, 04:26 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:



I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.



Looks to be AW nipping at Westbrooks heels. Him and KW were inches away from shutting down that screen, just the way the cookie crumbles.

VikingMike
01-10-2009, 05:41 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:



I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.



Looks to be AW nipping at Westbrooks heels. Him and KW were inches away from shutting down that screen, just the way the cookie crumbles.



Yes, that was Winny.

singersp
01-10-2009, 08:38 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:



I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.



Looks to be AW nipping at Westbrooks heels. Him and KW were inches away from shutting down that screen, just the way the cookie crumbles.


"Missed him by that much!"

http://roicopy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/windowslivewriterbusinessideastohelpyourmagazine-b841maxwell-smart2.jpg

jargomcfargo
01-10-2009, 09:55 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"jessejames09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:



I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.



Looks to be AW nipping at Westbrooks heels. Him and KW were inches away from shutting down that screen, just the way the cookie crumbles.


"Missed him by that much!"

http://roicopy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/windowslivewriterbusinessideastohelpyourmagazine-b841maxwell-smart2.jpg


OK here we go. I saw it in real time at the dome. I knew who missed that tackle.
So is Winfield responsible for the touchdown?
Hell no.
Name the safeties that didn't catch a friggen running back. In fact, I watched that play from the defensive side. And there wasn't a safety behind Winfield.
Shit happens. But that shit should have never happened.
Any of you analytical genious types care to explain that one to me?
Guess I'm a little bitter since that was the spike in the heart.

Mikecarter81
01-10-2009, 10:07 PM
No, but does anyone else notice Jared Allen running Westbrook down the whole length of the field.
IF all of our players had that kind of hustle, we would be hard pressed to lose a game.

Mike

kevoncox
01-11-2009, 12:06 AM
I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Marrdro
01-11-2009, 07:35 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D

singersp
01-11-2009, 07:51 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

Marrdro
01-11-2009, 08:01 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya my friend.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

singersp
01-11-2009, 08:10 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya my friend.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D


http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/axe1.jpg

kevoncox
01-11-2009, 09:16 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya My Sexy Little Pixie.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

Marr,
I never made it down there. I went from having 3 weeks of Vacation to 2. Not to mention the current girl friend works for a cruise broker company and you have a man whose vacation is all used up by Labor day : (

Marrdro
01-11-2009, 09:18 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya My Sexy Little Pixie.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

Marr,
I never made it down there. I went from having 3 weeks of Vacation to 2. Not to mention the current girl friend works for a cruise broker company and you have a man whose vacation is all used up by Labor day : (


LOL.
Excuses excuses....... ;D ;D ;D

kevoncox
01-11-2009, 09:20 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


Marr,
You should know by now that I go into each game, knowing that any team can beat any team. I believe that every year is our title year as well. However, this year stings even more because of the teams in it. The usual
title winners are all out. Pats, Colts etc.

kevoncox
01-11-2009, 09:34 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya My Sexy Little Pixie.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

Marr,
I never made it down there. I went from having 3 weeks of Vacation to 2. Not to mention the current girl friend works for a cruise broker company and you have a man whose vacation is all used up by Labor day : (


LOL.
Excuses excuses....... ;D ;D ;D


Did I mention I am probably moving to Miami in July. She's a dolphin fan.

singersp
01-11-2009, 09:36 AM
R.I.P. 2008 Vikings (http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/2009/jan/08/rip-2008-vikings/)

Jon Laging, Talking Sports

Published Thursday, January 8, 2009


As the day grew longer and colder the Viking’s longboat slowly sank in the Metrodome.

Our Vikings did not match the Norse Vikings of old who took no sass from anybody and it was very unlikely that an opposing group of warriors would come to town and stomp the home folks....

kevoncox
01-11-2009, 09:41 AM
"singersp" wrote:


R.I.P. 2008 Vikings (http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/2009/jan/08/rip-2008-vikings/)

Jon Laging, Talking Sports

Published Thursday, January 8, 2009


As the day grew longer and colder the Viking’s longboat slowly sank in the Metrodome.

Our Vikings did not match the Norse Vikings of old who took no sass from anybody and it was very unlikely that an opposing group of warriors would come to town and stomp the home folks....




"Mike Max, WCCO sportscaster, bemoaned the loss and opined that our Vikings were beaten by a better team. No Max, they were beaten by a better quarterback and coach. If you compare the Philadelphia Eagles’ players with our all-pros, it’s obvious that the Vikings had better personnel with the exception of the most important position on the field."

Wow

ejmat
01-12-2009, 08:21 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya My Sexy Little Pixie.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

Marr,
I never made it down there. I went from having 3 weeks of Vacation to 2. Not to mention the current girl friend works for a cruise broker company and you have a man whose vacation is all used up by Labor day : (


LOL.
Excuses excuses....... ;D ;D ;D


Did I mention I am probably moving to Miami in July. She's a dolphin fan.


Hey maybe we can argue in person
;D
I live down here and my wife and her family are Dolphin fans too.
Not to mention most of my friends are too.

VikingMike
01-12-2009, 08:37 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jessejames09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:



I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.



Looks to be AW nipping at Westbrooks heels. Him and KW were inches away from shutting down that screen, just the way the cookie crumbles.


"Missed him by that much!"

http://roicopy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/windowslivewriterbusinessideastohelpyourmagazine-b841maxwell-smart2.jpg


OK here we go. I saw it in real time at the dome. I knew who missed that tackle.
So is Winfield responsible for the touchdown?
Hell no.
Name the safeties that didn't catch a friggen running back. In fact, I watched that play from the defensive side. And there wasn't a safety behind Winfield.
Shit happens. But that shit should have never happened.
Any of you analytical genious types care to explain that one to me?
Guess I'm a little bitter since that was the spike in the heart.



That's what we're all saying...shit happens, well executed play. Not blaming Winny...he actually threw his blocker aside to try to tackle Westbrook. Basically, Westbrook was escorted into the end zone.

mark
01-12-2009, 08:49 PM
"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.


What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.

kevoncox
01-12-2009, 10:07 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:








I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya My Sexy Little Pixie.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

Marr,
I never made it down there. I went from having 3 weeks of Vacation to 2. Not to mention the current girl friend works for a cruise broker company and you have a man whose vacation is all used up by Labor day : (


LOL.
Excuses excuses....... ;D ;D ;D


Did I mention I am probably moving to Miami in July. She's a dolphin fan.


Hey maybe we can argue in person
;D
I live down here and my wife and her family are Dolphin fans too.
Not to mention most of my friends are too.


You are on. I will need a fellow Vikings fan to cheer on. I meet one at Starbucks in Aventura.
I'm trying to convert my friend.

V-Unit
01-13-2009, 10:10 AM
"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





It's impossible to win 10 games in spite of your coaches.

Who called the CB blitz that resulted in a TD against the Panthers?
Who called the 99 yard bomb to Berrian against the Bears?
Who decided to kick a long FG against DET?
Who called the TD passes against the Cardinals?

Almost all of our losses had bad player miscues that led to that loss. Drops by Shank. ST errors that led to TDs. INTs, Picksixes, Fumbles.

I agree that coaching needs to improve, but the players are not without fault, and the coaches did do some good things this year. I think we are closer than most will admit at this point in the year, we simply must eliminate mistakes.

How, I'm not so sure. It falls on the shoulder's of both players and coaches. Accountability needs to be established. Jobs needs to be taken more seriously. Most importantly, I think the attitiude of the team needs to change. We needto look at ourselves as legitimate contenders, not just another team trying to scrap its way into the playoffs. Hopefully the success we had this season will make that all possible.

Marrdro
01-13-2009, 10:14 AM
"V" wrote:


It's impossible to win 10 games in spite of your coaches.

Who called the CB blitz that resulted in a TD against the Panthers?
Who called the 99 yard bomb to Berrian against the Bears?
Who decided to kick a long FG against DET?
Who called the TD passes against the Cardinals?

Almost all of our losses had bad player miscues that led to that loss. Drops by Shank. ST errors that led to TDs. INTs, Picksixes, Fumbles.

I agree that coaching needs to improve, but the players are not without fault, and the coaches did do some good things this year. I think we are closer than most will admit at this point in the year, we simply must eliminate mistakes.

How, I'm not so sure. It falls on the shoulder's of both players and coaches. Accountability needs to be established. Jobs needs to be taken more seriously. Most importantly, I think the attitiude of the team needs to change. We needto look at ourselves as legitimate contenders, not just another team trying to scrap its way into the playoffs. Hopefully the success we had this season will make that all possible.

Now thats a post like I expect to see out of you.
Great stuff my friend.

Not sure what the hell happened to you in the other 3....... ;D

BleedinPandG
01-13-2009, 10:21 AM
"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Wasn't Billichek fired by the Browns?
Aren't Lovie Smith, Gruden, McCarthy, Phillips, Gibs, Shannahan all considered great coaches?
Their teams didn't even make the playoffs this year... surely they don't "always" win...

Coaches game plan... players execute... no coach can over-come poor execution by players and blaming every lapse of execution on the coach is silly.

Ltrey33
01-13-2009, 10:23 AM
"VikingMike" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jessejames09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:





I have watched this so many times and it still drives me crazy. Initially I thought KWill was pulled down, but he clearly trips over the RT's foot...if doesn't trip, he completely disrupts the play. But instead there are 4 lineman blocking in front of Westbrook, as well as the receives who did a great job too. Just perfect execution by the Eagles...Westbrook followed his blocking like textbook.

sn6ZCZwBQLY



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/Image1-3.jpg

There's your missed tackle right there. The quality isn't very good so I don't know who that is.



Looks to be AW nipping at Westbrooks heels. Him and KW were inches away from shutting down that screen, just the way the cookie crumbles.


"Missed him by that much!"

http://roicopy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/windowslivewriterbusinessideastohelpyourmagazine-b841maxwell-smart2.jpg


OK here we go. I saw it in real time at the dome. I knew who missed that tackle.
So is Winfield responsible for the touchdown?
Hell no.
Name the safeties that didn't catch a friggen running back. In fact, I watched that play from the defensive side. And there wasn't a safety behind Winfield.
Shit happens. But that shit should have never happened.
Any of you analytical genious types care to explain that one to me?
Guess I'm a little bitter since that was the spike in the heart.



That's what we're all saying...shit happens, well executed play. Not blaming Winny...he actually threw his blocker aside to try to tackle Westbrook. Basically, Westbrook was escorted into the end zone.


If you watch the play, you can see that Winfield had a bad angle on him.

He was being blocked downfield and by the time he sprung free, he was perpendicular to where Westbrook was and didn't have the angle to catch him.

kevoncox
01-13-2009, 11:13 AM
"BleedinPandG" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Wasn't Billichek fired by the Browns?
Aren't Lovie Smith, Gruden, McCarthy, Phillips, Gibs, Shannahan all considered great coaches?
Their teams didn't even make the playoffs this year... surely they don't "always" win...

Coaches game plan... players execute... no coach can over-come poor execution by players and blaming every lapse of execution on the coach is silly.


Do you really think the players are to blame for our 2 min drill?

C Mac D
01-13-2009, 11:15 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"BleedinPandG" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Wasn't Billichek fired by the Browns?
Aren't Lovie Smith, Gruden, McCarthy, Phillips, Gibs, Shannahan all considered great coaches?
Their teams didn't even make the playoffs this year... surely they don't "always" win...

Coaches game plan... players execute... no coach can over-come poor execution by players and blaming every lapse of execution on the coach is silly.


Do you really think the players are to blame for our 2 min drill?



I thought the confusion on their faces told the story... no one knew what was going on.


Cough... cough... (coaching)... cough...

PackSux!
01-13-2009, 06:34 PM
"C" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"BleedinPandG" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Wasn't Billichek fired by the Browns?
Aren't Lovie Smith, Gruden, McCarthy, Phillips, Gibs, Shannahan all considered great coaches?
Their teams didn't even make the playoffs this year... surely they don't "always" win...

Coaches game plan... players execute... no coach can over-come poor execution by players and blaming every lapse of execution on the coach is silly.


Do you really think the players are to blame for our 2 min drill?



I thought the confusion on their faces told the story... no one knew what was going on.


Cough... cough... (coaching)... cough...


Yes you are right on that one.
It has to be coaching but it could be our challenged quarterbacks?


Actually either way its coaching.


He still earned his chance to stay as our coach.
Ziggy said it day one that he wants to build a dynasty over time and the team has gotten better the last three years.
If Chilly dont make it farther into the playoffs this coming season then he will be gone.

CTVikingfan
01-13-2009, 07:23 PM
I stsrted to agree
until do we Blame the players for the two minute drill? hell yes who else do you blame they are the ones on the feild book knowledge goes so far teach someone all you want if they dont execute it is on them.

ejmat
01-13-2009, 09:04 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:










I wonder if everyone enderstands what I meant when I said this was our year to win a title.
The Cardinals are in the
NFCCG. Seriously!

Yea everyone understands that if the Iggles would have come in and laid a egg like that we might have made it to the next round, then the next team we faced could have laid an egg like the Panthers did yesterday.

Seriously, did you believe the Panthers were gonna lose to the Cards?

By the way, I think it is our year every year.
Its called blind optimism.
At some point though, I take a look at our team, other teams and realize, unless the stars align perfectly its never gonna happen.

Try another tact to convince me that this was our year my optimistic friend. ;D


On a side note, has Kevoncox ever made a "positive" post without dissing anyone/anything?

http://shootthemoose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/schlep.jpg

I hear ya My Sexy Little Pixie.

Kevon is on my sheeeeyat list though.
We were supposed to take in a Hampton game this year and he never showed.......You know how I am when I have an axe to grind. ;D

Marr,
I never made it down there. I went from having 3 weeks of Vacation to 2. Not to mention the current girl friend works for a cruise broker company and you have a man whose vacation is all used up by Labor day : (


LOL.
Excuses excuses....... ;D ;D ;D


Did I mention I am probably moving to Miami in July. She's a dolphin fan.


Hey maybe we can argue in person
;D
I live down here and my wife and her family are Dolphin fans too.
Not to mention most of my friends are too.


You are on. I will need a fellow Vikings fan to cheer on. I meet one at Starbucks in Aventura.
I'm trying to convert my friend.


Cool but only if you promise we argue about the Giants
;D

ejmat
01-13-2009, 09:06 PM
"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Right.
Becasue the coaches taught people how to fumble and throw INTs.
They also thoroughly taught the players how to kill drives with penalties.
Yep.
100% coaches fault!

BleedinPandG
01-14-2009, 07:50 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Right.
Becasue the coaches taught people how to fumble and throw INTs.
They also thoroughly taught the players how to kill drives with penalties.
Yep.
100% coaches fault!


You know what... penalties I will put on coaches to some extent.

Lets face it... some teams are just more disciplined than others.
Some teams are tougher than others.
Some teams are
more physical than others.
Some times a team takes on the personality of a city (like Pittsburgh or Philly), or maybe it's their star player (Ray Lewis in Baltimore), or maybe it's coaching pushing a level of accountability throughout the team.
In my mind, a coach does hold some responsibility in penalties.
It shows a lack of concentration by players, a lack of discipline, that they aren't holding themselves accountable to either themselves or their teammates.

I think Chilly is doing a lot of things right.
One of my disappointments though is a real lack of toughness by the team.
I don't sense a team that wants to physically dominate their opponents.
I don't get the sense that our O Linemen want to rip the heads off their opponents and crush their corpses into the ground as AD runs for another TD.
I didn't sense the fire this year that I believe the better teams have.

Now we all know Chilly isn't the most dynamic coach.
He's not Ditka, Gruden, the Chin, or a loud in your face guy.
He's much more the mold of a Dungy, quiet and focused.
I just wonder if that's really the right approach for football.
This much is for sure... I want to see a nasty, tenacious, ball hawking Defense next year that believes every player carrying the ball is an enemy, and every ball is theirs.
I want to see an intense, mammoth offense that believes Defenses exist only to be punished, pushed around, and stepped on from the O Line through the WRs.
The defense is simply a bug in their path to be squashed.

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 07:53 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.


What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.




Right.
Becasue the coaches taught people how to fumble and throw INTs.
They also thoroughly taught the players how to kill drives with penalties.
Yep.
100% coaches fault!


No, but they didn't teach them not to, which is their job. And they did put them on the field,which they shouldn't have if they hadn't been taught properly ;).

BleedinPandG
01-14-2009, 07:59 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Right.
Becasue the coaches taught people how to fumble and throw INTs.
They also thoroughly taught the players how to kill drives with penalties.
Yep.
100% coaches fault!


No, but they didn't teach them not to, which is their job. And they did put them on the field,which they shouldn't have if they hadn't been taught properly ;).


You believe an NFL Football Coach's job is to teach players the fundamentals of the game?
Come on... seriously?
That's like asking a college professor to teach his PhD class on String Theory how to count.

V-Unit
01-14-2009, 08:32 AM
"BleedinPandG" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"mark" wrote:


"misplacedminnesotan" wrote:


Its always funny how it is the coach's fault for a loss, and the team wins despite the coach.
What great logic some fans have.


theses reason why some coaches always win.Its because they hire good coaches and have good schemes.when you have talent like the vikings its obvious to me the only thing holding us back is the coaches/scheme.



What do you think the pats coaches would have done with out team.I garentee if our coaching staff was with the pats this year they would have a top 5 pick.Our problems are 100% the coaches fault.





Right.
Becasue the coaches taught people how to fumble and throw INTs.
They also thoroughly taught the players how to kill drives with penalties.
Yep.
100% coaches fault!


You know what... penalties I will put on coaches to some extent.

Lets face it... some teams are just more disciplined than others.
Some teams are tougher than others.
Some teams are
more physical than others.
Some times a team takes on the personality of a city (like Pittsburgh or Philly), or maybe it's their star player (Ray Lewis in Baltimore), or maybe it's coaching pushing a level of accountability throughout the team.
In my mind, a coach does hold some responsibility in penalties.
It shows a lack of concentration by players, a lack of discipline, that they aren't holding themselves accountable to either themselves or their teammates.

I think Chilly is doing a lot of things right.
One of my disappointments though is a real lack of toughness by the team.
I don't sense a team that wants to physically dominate their opponents.
I don't get the sense that our O Linemen want to rip the heads off their opponents and crush their corpses into the ground as AD runs for another TD.
I didn't sense the fire this year that I believe the better teams have.

Now we all know Chilly isn't the most dynamic coach.
He's not Ditka, Gruden, the Chin, or a loud in your face guy.
He's much more the mold of a Dungy, quiet and focused.
I just wonder if that's really the right approach for football.
This much is for sure... I want to see a nasty, tenacious, ball hawking Defense next year that believes every player carrying the ball is an enemy, and every ball is theirs.
I want to see an intense, mammoth offense that believes Defenses exist only to be punished, pushed around, and stepped on from the O Line through the WRs.
The defense is simply a bug in their path to be squashed.


Agreed. The lack of discipline is extremely disappointed. I will say though that I'm glad we have least have offensive and defensive identities after losing them during the Tice era. Also, the personality of this team is a calm and composed one that doesn't lose its cool under pressure.