Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Why Tomlin?

  1. #71
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "VikingsTw" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    we need tomlin
    We had Tomlin. We just kept the wrong dude.
    We had Tomlin as a DC.
    It was his choice to go to the Steelers as a HC.
    I am sure Wilf would have kept him in Mn if it were up to him.
    The power was in his hands. He chose not to use it.

    We all had mad love for Tomlin. Not only did he turn the defense around but he had everything that he has shown the Steelers Orginization. We all felt something was missing once he left and that we let go of a guy very capable of being a head coach. However to fire Childress and give Tomlin the job was just not the correct decision at the time. I think it's way easier said than done from a fans perspective.

    Its unfortunate that he's not our Coach but at the same time its hypycritical of Ziggy to fire Childress after one season. Now if Childress and Tomlin were both interviewing for head coaching duties and he passed on Tomlin, thats a different story. I would absolutly love to have Tomlin as Head Coach and Childress in a high place of decision making in the Front Office.

    +1

    And who knows if Tomlin would have changed his mind and wanted to coach here instead anyway


  2. #72
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

  3. #73
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

    Oh yah no doubt.. I agree with ya that EJ wasn't at his potential

    But the same can be said about some of the Steelers players.. I.E Harrison

  4. #74
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

    Oh yah no doubt.. I agree with ya that EJ wasn't at his potential

    But the same can be said about some of the Steelers players.. I.E Harrison
    Maybe true about Harrison but it's not just EJ or Harrison.
    I am looking at the whole picture.
    EJ was definately not the same player he is today.
    AW was not the same.
    McKinnie was not the same.
    PWill was not as dominating back then.
    It's the whole picture I am getting at.
    Klewe was even used as a basis to this argument.
    So when I see people trying to use the players as a nucleous and compare the Vikings team when Childress took over vs. the Steelers when Tomlin took over there is no comparison.
    Steelers win that hands down.
    Hence, why I believe Tomlin walked into a much better situation then Childress.
    So to compare the two at this point and have a good analysis of their HCing careers is not a good sample size.
    If people want to say that Tomlin has been more successful at this stage in the game I will agree whole-heartedly.
    If people want me to choose at this stage who I would want I would say Tomlin because I think he is more creative.

    Hell people want to give TJ 5 years to get better at QB but they say because Childress hasn't won a SB yet after three means he sucks?
    Out of all the football HCs in the NFL only 4 that I can think of have won the superbowl by their 3rd year.
    Seifort and Switzer took over a teams that were SB ready and imo so did Tomlin.
    Childress did not by any means have a SB calibur team when he took over.
    Billick was the other.
    If there is more I can't think of them.
    Hell, the SB has only been won 43 times and a lot of them were repeaters.
    Therefore even a small percentage of HCs win the SB as it is to begin with and to EXPECT any HC to win a SB in thier first 3 years as a HC is absolutely ridiculous.

  5. #75
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    [quote author=V4L link=topic=50394.msg905665#msg905665 date=1234109495]
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

    Oh yah no doubt.. I agree with ya that EJ wasn't at his potential

    But the same can be said about some of the Steelers players.. I.E Harrison
    Maybe true about Harrison but it's not just EJ or Harrison.
    I am looking at the whole picture.
    EJ was definately not the same player he is today.
    AW was not the same.
    McKinnie was not the same.
    PWill was not as dominating back then.
    It's the whole picture I am getting at.
    Klewe was even used as a basis to this argument.
    So when I see people trying to use the players as a nucleous and compare the Vikings team when Childress took over vs. the Steelers when Tomlin took over there is no comparison.
    Steelers win that hands down.
    Hence, why I believe Tomlin walked into a much better situation then Childress.
    So to compare the two at this point and have a good analysis of their HCing careers is not a good sample size.
    If people want to say that Tomlin has been more successful at this stage in the game I will agree whole-heartedly.
    If people want me to choose at this stage who I would want I would say Tomlin because I think he is more creative.

    Hell people want to give TJ 5 years to get better at QB but they say because Childress hasn't won a SB yet after three means he sucks?
    Out of all the football HCs in the NFL only 4 that I can think of have won the superbowl by their 3rd year.
    Seifort and Switzer took over a teams that were SB ready and imo so did Tomlin.
    Childress did not by any means have a SB calibur team when he took over.
    Billick was the other.
    If there is more I can't think of them.
    Hell, the SB has only been won 43 times and a lot of them were repeaters.
    Therefore even a small percentage of HCs win the SB as it is to begin with and to EXPECT any HC to win a SB in thier first 3 years as a HC is absolutely ridiculous.
    [/quote]

    Kluwe was used because he was here before childress. The Steelers punter this year was not there during the Cowher SB year. That should be simple to understand.


    I was stating starters who we had when Childress got here and the ones who left before Tomlin got there. There was no bias, just facts. Both teams had a core of talented players and one took the younger ones and integrated them into the current scheme and won a SB. The other decided to reinvent the wheel and ended up with a flat tire.

  6. #76
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    [quote author=ejmat link=topic=50394.msg905696#msg905696 date=1234110656]
    [quote author=V4L link=topic=50394.msg905665#msg905665 date=1234109495]
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

    Oh yah no doubt.. I agree with ya that EJ wasn't at his potential

    But the same can be said about some of the Steelers players.. I.E Harrison
    Maybe true about Harrison but it's not just EJ or Harrison.
    I am looking at the whole picture.
    EJ was definately not the same player he is today.
    AW was not the same.
    McKinnie was not the same.
    PWill was not as dominating back then.
    It's the whole picture I am getting at.
    Klewe was even used as a basis to this argument.
    So when I see people trying to use the players as a nucleous and compare the Vikings team when Childress took over vs. the Steelers when Tomlin took over there is no comparison.
    Steelers win that hands down.
    Hence, why I believe Tomlin walked into a much better situation then Childress.
    So to compare the two at this point and have a good analysis of their HCing careers is not a good sample size.
    If people want to say that Tomlin has been more successful at this stage in the game I will agree whole-heartedly.
    If people want me to choose at this stage who I would want I would say Tomlin because I think he is more creative.

    Hell people want to give TJ 5 years to get better at QB but they say because Childress hasn't won a SB yet after three means he sucks?
    Out of all the football HCs in the NFL only 4 that I can think of have won the superbowl by their 3rd year.
    Seifort and Switzer took over a teams that were SB ready and imo so did Tomlin.
    Childress did not by any means have a SB calibur team when he took over.
    Billick was the other.
    If there is more I can't think of them.
    Hell, the SB has only been won 43 times and a lot of them were repeaters.
    Therefore even a small percentage of HCs win the SB as it is to begin with and to EXPECT any HC to win a SB in thier first 3 years as a HC is absolutely ridiculous.
    [/quote]

    Kluwe was used because he was here before childress. The Steelers punter this year was not there during the Cowher SB year. That should be simple to understand.


    I was stating starters who we had when Childress got here and the ones who left before Tomlin got there. There was no bias, just facts. Both teams had a core of talented players and one took the younger ones and integrated them into the current scheme and won a SB. The other decided to reinvent the wheel and ended up with a flat tire.
    [/quote]

    I have no issues understanding the circumstances of Klewe.
    We were talking about a NUCLEOUS of a team.
    You used him in that sense.
    I am not saying you are biased at all.
    In fact, I always respect your input whether we agree or not.
    If you think Tomlin didn't have a better situation with better players when he took over than Childress had I disagree.
    The Viking players Childress took over was not as talented as the players in which Tomlin took over with the Steelers.
    Most of them won a SB a year before he got there.
    That alone tells me the team is SB ready especially when they still had a lot of the same players with a good mix of veterans and young players.
    When is the last time the Vikings won or even went to a SB?
    Just because a team has a mediocre season in between winning 2 SBs 3 years apart doesn't mean the team didn't have talent or wasn't SB ready.
    It means they had a mediocre season and were in a very good division last year.

    You used the Vikings being in a bad division last year to rebutt me when I said they had a tough schedule this year.
    You do realize that the Viking's schedule played against teams that were 34 games above .500 if you take out the 2 games they played against the Lions.
    So out of 14 games they played it was against teams that were a combined 34 games above .500 and for 2 games it was against a team that was 32 games below .500 combined.
    Even with the so called "weak" division there is really only 1 team that is bad and that is the Lions.
    The Pack and Bears were not bad teams and they were capable of beating anyone in the league.
    Even though the record doesn't show it the Pack were one year off of a 13-3 season.

  7. #77
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,216

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "ejmat" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    [quote author=V4L link=topic=50394.msg905706#msg905706 date=1234111633]
    [quote author=ejmat link=topic=50394.msg905696#msg905696 date=1234110656]
    [quote author=V4L link=topic=50394.msg905665#msg905665 date=1234109495]
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

    Oh yah no doubt.. I agree with ya that EJ wasn't at his potential

    But the same can be said about some of the Steelers players.. I.E Harrison
    Maybe true about Harrison but it's not just EJ or Harrison.
    I am looking at the whole picture.
    EJ was definately not the same player he is today.
    AW was not the same.
    McKinnie was not the same.
    PWill was not as dominating back then.
    It's the whole picture I am getting at.
    Klewe was even used as a basis to this argument.
    So when I see people trying to use the players as a nucleous and compare the Vikings team when Childress took over vs. the Steelers when Tomlin took over there is no comparison.
    Steelers win that hands down.
    Hence, why I believe Tomlin walked into a much better situation then Childress.
    So to compare the two at this point and have a good analysis of their HCing careers is not a good sample size.
    If people want to say that Tomlin has been more successful at this stage in the game I will agree whole-heartedly.
    If people want me to choose at this stage who I would want I would say Tomlin because I think he is more creative.

    Hell people want to give TJ 5 years to get better at QB but they say because Childress hasn't won a SB yet after three means he sucks?
    Out of all the football HCs in the NFL only 4 that I can think of have won the superbowl by their 3rd year.
    Seifort and Switzer took over a teams that were SB ready and imo so did Tomlin.
    Childress did not by any means have a SB calibur team when he took over.
    Billick was the other.
    If there is more I can't think of them.
    Hell, the SB has only been won 43 times and a lot of them were repeaters.
    Therefore even a small percentage of HCs win the SB as it is to begin with and to EXPECT any HC to win a SB in thier first 3 years as a HC is absolutely ridiculous.
    [/quote]

    Kluwe was used because he was here before childress. The Steelers punter this year was not there during the Cowher SB year. That should be simple to understand.


    I was stating starters who we had when Childress got here and the ones who left before Tomlin got there. There was no bias, just facts. Both teams had a core of talented players and one took the younger ones and integrated them into the current scheme and won a SB. The other decided to reinvent the wheel and ended up with a flat tire.
    [/quote]

    I have no issues understanding the circumstances of Klewe.
    We were talking about a NUCLEOUS of a team.
    You used him in that sense.
    I am not saying you are biased at all.
    In fact, I always respect your input whether we agree or not.
    If you think Tomlin didn't have a better situation with better players when he took over than Childress had I disagree.
    The Viking players Childress took over was not as talented as the players in which Tomlin took over with the Steelers.
    Most of them won a SB a year before he got there.
    That alone tells me the team is SB ready especially when they still had a lot of the same players with a good mix of veterans and young players.
    When is the last time the Vikings won or even went to a SB?
    Just because a team has a mediocre season in between winning 2 SBs 3 years apart doesn't mean the team didn't have talent or wasn't SB ready.
    It means they had a mediocre season and were in a very good division last year.

    You used the Vikings being in a bad division last year to rebutt me when I said they had a tough schedule this year.
    You do realize that the Viking's schedule played against teams that were 34 games above .500 if you take out the 2 games they played against the Lions.
    So out of 14 games they played it was against teams that were a combined 34 games above .500 and for 2 games it was against a team that was 32 games below .500 combined.
    Even with the so called "weak" division there is really only 1 team that is bad and that is the Lions.
    The Pack and Bears were not bad teams and they were capable of beating anyone in the league.
    Even though the record doesn't show it the Pack were one year off of a 13-3 season.
    [/quote]

    Again, no one is denying that Tomlin walked into a "better" situation, but people are talking as if Childress had jack shit for players on this team.

    We may not had been to the SB prior to that, but we had plenty of damn good talent for Childress to begin with.

    Tomlin was able to take his team back there in his second year after taking over an 8-8 team that was made up of that same "nucleous".

    It takes good coaching as well as good players to win the SB. Tomlin provided that.

    3 years of Childress with the addition of players like Hutch & Allen, coupled with one of the best defensive lines & some great LB's & we are still a mediocre team.

    Yes, we finished 10-6 & went to the playoffs, but our team is not as good as our record indicates.

    He also boasted that "It all starts up front" & 3 years later, even with the addition of Hutch, our O-line is not performing in the passing game.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  8. #78
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Why Tomlin?

    "singersp" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    "V4L" wrote:
    [quote author=ejmat link=topic=50394.msg905719#msg905719 date=1234113292]
    [quote author=V4L link=topic=50394.msg905706#msg905706 date=1234111633]
    [quote author=ejmat link=topic=50394.msg905696#msg905696 date=1234110656]
    [quote author=V4L link=topic=50394.msg905665#msg905665 date=1234109495]
    Exactly EJ was an up and coming raw talent

    His skills needed to be shaped.. And he was just learning
    Correct!
    So under who's reign were his skills better utilized and shaped?

    Under Chilldress his skills have reached thier potential

    I don't think it's BECAUSE OF Chilly.. He was improving each year regardless who was the coach

    But yes under Brad he has reached his max
    I doubt Childress ha a lot to do with it.
    That is really not where I am going with this.
    I am discounting the claim that Childress had a good nucleous of players when he took over the team when compared to Tomlin taking over the Steelers.

    Oh yah no doubt.. I agree with ya that EJ wasn't at his potential

    But the same can be said about some of the Steelers players.. I.E Harrison
    Maybe true about Harrison but it's not just EJ or Harrison.
    I am looking at the whole picture.
    EJ was definately not the same player he is today.
    AW was not the same.
    McKinnie was not the same.
    PWill was not as dominating back then.
    It's the whole picture I am getting at.
    Klewe was even used as a basis to this argument.
    So when I see people trying to use the players as a nucleous and compare the Vikings team when Childress took over vs. the Steelers when Tomlin took over there is no comparison.
    Steelers win that hands down.
    Hence, why I believe Tomlin walked into a much better situation then Childress.
    So to compare the two at this point and have a good analysis of their HCing careers is not a good sample size.
    If people want to say that Tomlin has been more successful at this stage in the game I will agree whole-heartedly.
    If people want me to choose at this stage who I would want I would say Tomlin because I think he is more creative.

    Hell people want to give TJ 5 years to get better at QB but they say because Childress hasn't won a SB yet after three means he sucks?
    Out of all the football HCs in the NFL only 4 that I can think of have won the superbowl by their 3rd year.
    Seifort and Switzer took over a teams that were SB ready and imo so did Tomlin.
    Childress did not by any means have a SB calibur team when he took over.
    Billick was the other.
    If there is more I can't think of them.
    Hell, the SB has only been won 43 times and a lot of them were repeaters.
    Therefore even a small percentage of HCs win the SB as it is to begin with and to EXPECT any HC to win a SB in thier first 3 years as a HC is absolutely ridiculous.
    [/quote]

    Kluwe was used because he was here before childress. The Steelers punter this year was not there during the Cowher SB year. That should be simple to understand.


    I was stating starters who we had when Childress got here and the ones who left before Tomlin got there. There was no bias, just facts. Both teams had a core of talented players and one took the younger ones and integrated them into the current scheme and won a SB. The other decided to reinvent the wheel and ended up with a flat tire.
    [/quote]

    I have no issues understanding the circumstances of Klewe.
    We were talking about a NUCLEOUS of a team.
    You used him in that sense.
    I am not saying you are biased at all.
    In fact, I always respect your input whether we agree or not.
    If you think Tomlin didn't have a better situation with better players when he took over than Childress had I disagree.
    The Viking players Childress took over was not as talented as the players in which Tomlin took over with the Steelers.
    Most of them won a SB a year before he got there.
    That alone tells me the team is SB ready especially when they still had a lot of the same players with a good mix of veterans and young players.
    When is the last time the Vikings won or even went to a SB?
    Just because a team has a mediocre season in between winning 2 SBs 3 years apart doesn't mean the team didn't have talent or wasn't SB ready.
    It means they had a mediocre season and were in a very good division last year.

    You used the Vikings being in a bad division last year to rebutt me when I said they had a tough schedule this year.
    You do realize that the Viking's schedule played against teams that were 34 games above .500 if you take out the 2 games they played against the Lions.
    So out of 14 games they played it was against teams that were a combined 34 games above .500 and for 2 games it was against a team that was 32 games below .500 combined.
    Even with the so called "weak" division there is really only 1 team that is bad and that is the Lions.
    The Pack and Bears were not bad teams and they were capable of beating anyone in the league.
    Even though the record doesn't show it the Pack were one year off of a 13-3 season.
    [/quote]

    Again, no one is denying that Tomlin walked into a "better" situation, but people are talking as if Childress had jack shit for players on this team.

    We may not had been to the SB prior to that, but we had plenty of damn good talent for Childress to begin with.

    Tomlin was able to take his team back there in his second year after taking over an 8-8 team that was made up of that same "nucleous".

    It takes good coaching as well as good players to win the SB. Tomlin provided that.

    3 years of Childress with the addition of players like Hutch & Allen, coupled with one of the best defensive lines & some great LB's & we are still a mediocre team.

    Yes, we finished 10-6 & went to the playoffs, but our team is not as good as our record indicates.

    He also boasted that "It all starts up front" & 3 years later, even with the addition of Hutch, our O-line is not performing in the passing game.
    [/quote]

    People ARE denying that Tomlin walked into a better situation.
    That is the basis of my debate in this post.
    I never stated it doesn't take good coaching.
    It does and I applaud Tomlin for his achievement.
    The fact remains he took over a team that was in fact superbowl ready.
    Whereas, Childress took over a team that wasn't and hasn't been since the year 2000.

    Hutch is the least of our problems on the oline.
    I think there are a few problems on the oline to include McKinnie, Cook and an aging Birk.
    McKinnie has been better the last couple of seasons but he still gets beat on pass protection.
    I have never denied that either.

    I never said the Vikings didn't have talent when Childress took over.
    But the nucleous of the Vikings 1) didn't stay in tact and 2) were not superbowl ready to begin with.
    The Steelers nucleous when Tomlin took over were superbowl ready.
    That is the entire basis of my debate and people are trying to say I am wrong.

    Edit:
    It's not like the Steelers front line did weell either.
    The difference is not Tomlin's coaching ability but Ben's ability to break tackles and still throw the ball down field.
    Whereas the Vikings did not have a QB capable of doing that on a consistent basis.
    But that has nothing to do with coaching and more to do with the players ability.

    The Vikings team is as good as it's record indicates.
    Without the Lions they played teams with a combined record of 34 games over .500.
    I think going 8-6 against that is pretty darn good.
    Putting the Lions back in skews that becasue it makes the schedule look like they played teams just 2 games over .500.
    Even with that said the Lions imo are not as bad as the 0-16 record.
    They played teams tough this year but unfortunately for them couldn't pull out any games.
    This also brings me back to my earlier post that the Vikings record of 9-7 when Childress took over.
    That team was not as good as their 9-7 record.
    The played a weak schedule that year.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Without Tomlin
    By CT29 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-20-2007, 05:45 PM
  2. Tell me about Tomlin
    By FinNasty23 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-16-2007, 08:14 AM
  3. PFT says Tomlin best fit for Steelers HC
    By skum in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-04-2007, 07:45 PM
  4. Mike Tomlin
    By JAO in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-09-2006, 04:05 PM
  5. Tomlin Interview 09/21/06
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2006, 05:01 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •