Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63
  1. #21
    mountainviking's Avatar
    mountainviking is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,841

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    One word for the haters:
    TEAM.
    Win or Lose, they do it together.

    I think the bye is a huge advantage.
    The players usually get the week off, so I don't think it is them so much as the coaches having the extra time to watch the game tapes and concoct the absolute best gameplan against that team.
    Then again, our young players do need all the help they can get.

    Spreadsheet???
    You're one of my favorites Marrdro!
    IMHO, everyone has something to say.
    I often disagree, but try to stay open to the other side of the coin as well (unless the winers really piss me off like earlier today in the rants!).
    What I love the most about this site, is the humor.
    I bust out LOL at least once a day ;D

    Been a fan a long time...fantasy football fanatic for 7 or 8 years now.
    Vikings are certainly my No.1, but the fantasy got me more into watching other games.
    My only playing experience was drunken tackle football in about two feet of snow in St. Cloud MN in college.
    I played CB and my peripheral vision helped me get in on nearly every play...OK in coverage, and loved to hit the RB
    ;D
    The other team was pretty sick of me by the time we quit...totally wished I would have played in High School after that, but never really considered how good I could have been on defense...don't all young kids want to play WR, RB or QB?
    Oh well, that might have changed my whole life, and I'm pretty happy where I'm at.
    Control the line, control the time, and give your D a chance to shine!!

    "Balance it on end and thats the third side of the coin!!" -wookiefoot

  2. #22
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "C" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "soonerbornNbred" wrote:
    marr stick this on your spreadsheet
    Purplepride.org is more than a simple fan site for Vikings fans from around the world.
    It is an open, welcoming community in which Vikings fans from every walk and corner of the world
    Its a site which if you have a opinion other than Marrdo or his groupies Your sure to be properly subjected to snide rip about a spreadsheet or postcount=intelligence comment
    The rest of the country saw yesterday that Childress is suspect at best, your boy TJack couldnt QB is way out of a wet paper bag....yet youll refuse to see and throw blame everywhere but at TJ or chilly thats your M.O.
    On the cowboys postgame yesterday the def. players were wondering what was going on with Vikings playcalling because they said it played right into their gameplan of "we are going to make them beat us with their QB"
    I couldn't agree more.
    I like Marrdro, although sometimes his arrogance is shines just a bit brighter than the sun...


    The problem is that he says those who agree with him have a clue, and those that disagree don't. Since when does Marrdro make the rules?

    For the record, that Peterson in the slot formation is bullshit. The reverse they run out of it is bullshit, and the fake reverse they run out of it is bullshit. I have said it since day one: Richardson is more valuable as a blocker than Peterson or Taylor are as decoys.

    It's getting to the point where I'm sick of being right.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  3. #23
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "Prophet" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    ...The spread sheet I refer to my friend is that which I keep to remind me of the percieved knowledge that posters on this site have...
    So, what are the categories on the spreadsheet?
    Asshat, donkey butt, jerk, silly guy, idiot?
    It might be easier to just have a word file and put everyone's name on it under idiot.
    It would save you time and effort.
    Is it possible to be in every category?

    Fire Childress.

    Brad Childress walks into a pharmacy and asks assistant for an anal deodorant. The assistant explains that they don't stock them. Childress insists that he bought his last one from this store.

    The assistant passes man on to the pharmacist, who explains that store has never stocked such an item. Chilly explains he bought his last one from this store only weeks ago and has done for several years. The pharmacist asks Childress to bring in his last purchase and he will try to match the product.

    The following day, Chilly returns to the pharmacy and shows the deodorant to the pharmacist. The pharmacist asks why he thinks this is an anal deodorant, when it is obviously of the underarm stick variety. Childress explains that instructions on reverse state, 'Push up bottom to use.'
    My spread sheet.

    a. Those who have a clue.
    Probably played at some level (High School or Above) or coached.


    These usually have the same opinions as I do or at least can articulate an opinion that might make me change mine.
    In a few cases people in this column do know more than me (or atleast thats my opinion of them).

    b. Those who seem to have a clue but are a bit off.
    Probably never been on a field or coached.


    These come up with stuff that I might not have thought of.
    Also they can form sensible arguments.
    Very easily swayed to my opinion or others that fall into column (a).

    c.
    Those who have no clue but still seem to be pretty intelligent and can be reasoned with.



    Same as b only it takes a bit more effort to make them see the errors of thier ways.

    d. Those who have no clue and think they do.
    Unable to reason with them at all.



    These guys are usually the ones that posters that fall into columns (a) and (b) call haters.
    Pretty much a waste of effort to try to help them understand even the basics of football, however, I still try.

    e.
    Just here for the beer.
    Have some sort of love for the team but love the kinship with other fans of thier team.




    These type of people are necessary to keeping the site fun and enjoyable for all.
    Most of them crack me up on a continual basis.

    f. Owner of the site.
    It doesn't matter what catagory he falls under.
    He owns the site.



    This guy has his own column for obvious reasons and with very few exceptions should ever be questioned.
    He owns that right.
    Apparently, I'm in column g.

    g. Those with a clue just because they love football, have watched tons of football, know and understand the rules of football and how they are to be applied and who also happen to be full of some funny poo.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  4. #24
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "V" wrote:
    ...The says those who agree with him have a clue, and those that disagree don't. Since when does Marrdro make the rules?

    ...It's getting to the point where I'm sick of being right.
    ....and that is exactly why I love reading you two going at it.
    lmao
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #25
    jessejames09's Avatar
    jessejames09 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,233

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    Lol people are gettin ready to bring back the cliques thread.

  6. #26
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "V" wrote:
    It's getting to the point where I'm sick of being right.
    Easy to be right after the game is over.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  7. #27
    douginc's Avatar
    douginc is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    220

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "douginc" wrote:
    At this point, no one should berate anyone who is Anti-Brad Childress.
    Anti-Childress just means Pro-Winning, in favor of a coach who coms out with a higher score than his opponent by the end of the game.
    Not excuses as to why he is loses constantly, being complacent with keeping the score close, but rather genuine wins.
    Until he has a better than .500 record, you cannot insult his insulters.

    It's perfectly acceptable to say something like "Brad Childress will be a quality winning coach, he simply needs more time".
    But, at this point, Childress has his unruly crowd not for phantom reasons.

    The Bears game was completely reminiscent of last year's Seattle game.
    Both were former Super Bowl runner ups, both overrated the following year.
    We had an entire week of preparation for one team, we finally put points on the board, and everyone thought it was a ressurection of the team, yet the following week, it was business as usual.
    This year, however, Dallas isn't quite the team that New England is, so our flaws weren't so boldly highlighted.
    Very interesting point of discussion my friend.

    Do you think we do better off the bye because it takes the coaching staff (not just the chiller mind you) to prepare or do you think that the extra time off allows the coaches a better opportunity to prep the younger players?

    I kindof lean towards the second opinion.
    :

    Very nice post, none the less.
    There is absolutely no such thing as a 'worthless' head coach.
    No one reaches the highest level of football coordination without a few very impressive achievements in their career.
    Mike Tice is an amazing Offensive Line coach.
    No aruging it; he has helped the Jacksonville Jaguars to a winning record largely in part of their tremendously improved O-Line scheme.

    Brad Childress, in my opinion, is a premier talent evaluator.
    Last years draft may well go down as one of the most successful in Vikings history.
    Chester Taylor was a wonderful addition (and is still overlooked as to his importance).
    Now, it could be argued that his latest acquisitions, Wade and Shiancoe are completely flops (plus, last year's free agency was about the weakest pool we've seen in pro football in many years - so, there really weren't amazing improvements out there to be added).
    I still believe Wade and Shank could be quality players, unfortunately the offensive right now is so horrendous that only our running game can recieve any type of accolades.
    Now, it could be argued what is causing those problems, but regardless, the buck stops at the head coach.
    It's just my opinion that, without drastic changes to our team's playing style, it is strange to think we will see drastic changes on the field.

    Many times when people call for a change in quarterbacks or head coaching, they really just want to see wins; which is usually rather blindly assumptive (see the last year of Mike Tice and how many people SWORE that any change in coaching would immediately lead to more wins - I am admittedly in that stupid group).
    It's OK to be stupid.
    It's NOT OK to stay stupid.

    I try to stay more logical about it (try being key word).
    I would love to see Marty Ball come to Minnesota, but that's simply my opinion.
    The only reasoning being, I would love to see Brad Childress TRY to make some dramatic changes.
    If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
    But, right now, being 2-4 with no sight of things easily turning around, it is broke, and go ahead and try to fix it.
    At least do something.
    The same players on the field, the same schemes, we're seeing the same results.
    Every box score is the same for every game we're in, even the one against the Bears.
    We can all recite it by memory.
    Rushing - we have a larger number than our opponent, they have few attempts and nearly as few yards.
    Passing - we are dominated in yards against, we have few attempts and nearly as few yards.

    I am no longer blindly stupid enough to think any change means instant results (bring in Brad Johnson and we're World Champions! - I still like Brad by the way, but still, come on now), but I would simply like to see changes whatsoever.
    I would love to have a game where there are violently different schemes, just to see what would happen.
    The games have become boring for the casual fan, since this type of football box score lacks true excitement.
    I think many fans don't mind the losses as much as they mind the fact that we lose in the exact same manner each and every game.

    So, I have no problem with people supporting Childress, as there is precedence for coaches of his type to have success.
    I however, simply have the opinion that BC is out of his element as a head coach in professional football, and is ultimately a very talented college coach whose transition is not fit for the NFL.
    Both sides of the "Childress is GOD" or "Childress must DIE" arguments should just remember to have respect for one another.
    Right now, the chips fall on the side of Childress is not a quality coach, since the bigger numbers are in the loss column, so the "GOD" side should remain a bit humble.
    However, should we somehow finish the year with a winning record, or next year make the playoffs with a very powerful team, the "DIE" side should smile, and politely eat their crow.
    (I am for saying Sidney Rice showed no signs of being an NFL calibur reciever before the year started - now he looks as if he's a genuine #1 threat in a few years - and I'm happy to be wrong)

  8. #28
    douginc's Avatar
    douginc is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    220

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "douginc" wrote:
    At this point, no one should berate anyone who is Anti-Brad Childress.
    Anti-Childress just means Pro-Winning, in favor of a coach who coms out with a higher score than his opponent by the end of the game.
    Not excuses as to why he is loses constantly, being complacent with keeping the score close, but rather genuine wins.
    Until he has a better than .500 record, you cannot insult his insulters.

    It's perfectly acceptable to say something like "Brad Childress will be a quality winning coach, he simply needs more time".
    But, at this point, Childress has his unruly crowd not for phantom reasons.

    The Bears game was completely reminiscent of last year's Seattle game.
    Both were former Super Bowl runner ups, both overrated the following year.
    We had an entire week of preparation for one team, we finally put points on the board, and everyone thought it was a ressurection of the team, yet the following week, it was business as usual.
    This year, however, Dallas isn't quite the team that New England is, so our flaws weren't so boldly highlighted.
    Very interesting point of discussion my friend.

    Do you think we do better off the bye because it takes the coaching staff (not just the chiller mind you) to prepare or do you think that the extra time off allows the coaches a better opportunity to prep the younger players?

    I kindof lean towards the second opinion.
    :

    Very nice post, none the less.
    To answer your question, also, Marrdro, the truth is almost always in the middle isn't it?

    Liberal, Conservative, we all know the proper answers are in between both of them, since both sides are too far away from center.
    Brad Childress isn't God.
    He also isn't God Awful.
    When he has time to prepare, we come out as a quality football team.
    That isn't an accident.
    Also, BC preps (just as Andy Reid is notorious for) the majority of his time for the opening drive.
    And we see very impressive results.

    The team is losing.
    And losing poorly.
    BC might not have the characteristics of a head coach, but he does seem to be very talented at preparation.
    When he has time, our team looks legitimate.
    If only we could try having someone else step in for the typical head coach duties, and attempt to give Childress all the time he needs for coordination.
    (In other words, have him try to be another offensive coordinator who doesn't call plays - exactly what he was in Philadelphia)
    All those NFC Championships for the Eagles, in which BC was in charge of the offensive preparation were not flukes - one = maybe| two = doubtful| three = near impossible| four = impossible.

    I think BC has the 'stuff', just not the head coach kind of 'stuff'.
    Just like Tice has the O-Line coaching ability, just not the head coaching ability.

  9. #29
    hx38596's Avatar
    hx38596 is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    456

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.3764542.html

    http://kstp.com/article/stories/S233110.shtml?cat=7

    http://www.star-telegram.com/332/story/276191.html

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/art..._B1_IRVIN08307


    Some articles from Tex/Ok area, since much of thier attention and affection is with Peterson.
    That first one is pretty good.
    It seems everyone down here want him to succeed up there.
    They are pulling for him.

  10. #30
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Childress' curious play calling helps Cowboys contain Peterson

    "douginc" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "douginc" wrote:
    At this point, no one should berate anyone who is Anti-Brad Childress.
    Anti-Childress just means Pro-Winning, in favor of a coach who coms out with a higher score than his opponent by the end of the game.
    Not excuses as to why he is loses constantly, being complacent with keeping the score close, but rather genuine wins.
    Until he has a better than .500 record, you cannot insult his insulters.

    It's perfectly acceptable to say something like "Brad Childress will be a quality winning coach, he simply needs more time".
    But, at this point, Childress has his unruly crowd not for phantom reasons.

    The Bears game was completely reminiscent of last year's Seattle game.
    Both were former Super Bowl runner ups, both overrated the following year.
    We had an entire week of preparation for one team, we finally put points on the board, and everyone thought it was a ressurection of the team, yet the following week, it was business as usual.
    This year, however, Dallas isn't quite the team that New England is, so our flaws weren't so boldly highlighted.
    Very interesting point of discussion my friend.

    Do you think we do better off the bye because it takes the coaching staff (not just the chiller mind you) to prepare or do you think that the extra time off allows the coaches a better opportunity to prep the younger players?

    I kindof lean towards the second opinion.
    :

    Very nice post, none the less.
    To answer your question, also, Marrdro, the truth is almost always in the middle isn't it?


    Liberal, Conservative, we all know the proper answers are in between both of them, since both sides are too far away from center.
    Brad Childress isn't God.
    He also isn't God Awful.
    When he has time to prepare, we come out as a quality football team.
    That isn't an accident.
    Also, BC preps (just as Andy Reid is notorious for) the majority of his time for the opening drive.
    And we see very impressive results.

    The team is losing.
    And losing poorly.
    BC might not have the characteristics of a head coach, but he does seem to be very talented at preparation.
    When he has time, our team looks legitimate.
    If only we could try having someone else step in for the typical head coach duties, and attempt to give Childress all the time he needs for coordination.
    (In other words, have him try to be another offensive coordinator who doesn't call plays - exactly what he was in Philadelphia)
    All those NFC Championships for the Eagles, in which BC was in charge of the offensive preparation were not flukes - one = maybe| two = doubtful| three = near impossible| four = impossible.

    I think BC has the 'stuff', just not the head coach kind of 'stuff'.
    Just like Tice has the O-Line coaching ability, just not the head coaching ability.
    Very nice.

    Hard to argue with most of that.


    I sure hope you are wrong as we are probably looking at least one more year of his HC abilities.
    :
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Childress talks about curious late-game call
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 04:48 PM
  2. MOVED: Childress talks about curious late-game call
    By ultravikingfan in forum Weekly Opponent Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 08:49 AM
  3. The Childress Era: Play Calling (2006-2008)
    By Prophet in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 03:10 PM
  4. Childress Reconsidering Play-Calling Duties?
    By PurplePumpkin in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-23-2006, 01:00 PM
  5. Winning helps unity, Defensive play sparks team
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-16-2005, 02:40 PM

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
  •