Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    bigdogbovy's Avatar
    bigdogbovy is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    532

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    I agree that running back by committe isn't as good. Look at the Saints game. When Williams was givcen a huge hole, then was caught from behind. Moore would have gone the distance. You lose opportunities for the big rush with a RB by committe. But I do like using Williams on passing situations. he's a great blocker.
    de43540278a8c8500baf55c07109eb7e

  2. #12
    AngloVike's Avatar
    AngloVike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Sandhurst, UK
    Posts
    6,778
    Blog Entries
    4

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    "sdvikefan" wrote:
    Here's another question. If Bennett does not get the starting spot back this season, does that mean his departure from the Vikings this offseason in a trade, or will he stay at least until the end of his contract in 2006?
    I'd say that he go this offseason, if a team was looking for a good RB then he'd be worth their while looking. That way that can plug an NFL experienced back in place straightaway and save any draft choices they'd have to fill another position. Could be a win-win for both the Vikes and the other team, if we wait until 2006 then team will just wait for Bennett to go straight into FA
    Time spent annoying a Packer fan is never time wasted...


  3. #13
    diesavike's Avatar
    diesavike is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    129

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    I'm not a fan of committee running backs either. For one thing a guy is not gonna get "warmed up" if he's in and out every other play, alot of backs need to be in there, see the defense, and get the football in their hands. Plus, if you have alot of backs playin then you say well Bennett would've done this, Smith would've done this, who should play this down, and so on. I say give it to one guy, MM, and stick with him, give him 90% of the carries and let him show he deserves to be in there, and I think MM is the man to do it.
    Sell crazy someplace else...we're all stocked up here.

  4. #14
    sdvikefan is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,321

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    "AngloVike" wrote:
    "sdvikefan" wrote:
    Here's another question. If Bennett does not get the starting spot back this season, does that mean his departure from the Vikings this offseason in a trade, or will he stay at least until the end of his contract in 2006?
    I'd say that he go this offseason, if a team was looking for a good RB then he'd be worth their while looking. That way that can plug an NFL experienced back in place straightaway and save any draft choices they'd have to fill another position. Could be a win-win for both the Vikes and the other team, if we wait until 2006 then team will just wait for Bennett to go straight into FA
    Yeah I have to agree with that. Two years ago, if someone had told me we would be talking about a Bennett trade, I would have called them a clueless idiot, or even worse, a Packer fan.

    But of course I couldn't foresee Bennett being plagued by constant injury, or that we'd pick up two RBs in the 4th rounds of the 2003 and 2004 drafts who would fill in so well in his absence. And there is no doubt it would be better for us to get someone in return for Bennett, or some draft picks, rather than let him go through FA.

    The thought of him leaving just bugs me though. He was amazing in 2002. But with Moore and Smith in the fold, our running game would hardly be hurting.
    "Meet at the quarterback!" -Purple People Eaters

  5. #15
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: The Mwelde Bandwagon

    "bigdogbovy" wrote:
    If you all remember I was called an Idiot for saying that MM was the future back of Minnesota at the beginning of the season. I said he looks like Preist Holmes and how about that now everyone agrees.
    All the MM prognosticators in this thread, I don't think as many people doubted the fact that another back would take Bennetts place, it was a matter of seeing it this year.

    Come on did you actually say that he would be playing by the end of the year. Now that would have been an awesome prediction.

    I personally had a preference(M.B.) at the beginning of the year but never doubted the fact that Smith and Moore were not good enough to play better than Bennett or take his job. To use anothers posters term, the B.MM.W. would still be parked in the garage if it wasn't for a string of events. Tice and company wouldn't have gone out on the limb for a rookie to outright replace Bennett.

    At this point, we don't know if Moore plays better than Bennett and we may not know if Moore plays better than Bennett. Bennett may not get an opportunity to show us how well he can play in the offense that we have come to know this year.

    By the way, didn't we have someone offer us a trade for Bennett last year or during the off season?? But we wanted to keep him. Or was it Smith???

    The other thing I will add is that this offense is like a cookie cutter for a RB with skill. We have 3 skilled RBs and one role RB. So far smith and moore have almost identical numbers. This last game helped moore's numbers look slightly better than smith's because moss was out, we were ahead, D played great, we didn't feel the threat, and we wanted to run more to get the time off the clock. Our O line has also gotten healthy and more experience playing together since moore took over. The only way you could get more out of your RB position is to add the homerun threat of speed to break one to the Zone.

    I think that Moore is more like Emmitt. He doesn't have that blazing speed but he could be an everydown back. If we could see more of him on the goal line to see if he could punch it in or go around the outside or jump over the Goal. Moore could be another Emmitt in terms of game by game production and not necessarily career comparisons. Longevity is always an issue in a comparison like that.

    I am trying to see both side of this, bottom line, I just want to see wins

    Also, we would have more heated arguments on this subject if we weren't winning. Winning affords many luxuries to Tice and his staff. If we weren't winning Bennet would have been back in there without a doubt.

  6. #16
    bigdogbovy's Avatar
    bigdogbovy is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    532

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    Yes it is all about the W
    de43540278a8c8500baf55c07109eb7e

  7. #17
    muchluv4smoot's Avatar
    muchluv4smoot is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,318

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    "sdvikefan" wrote:
    Here's another question. If Bennett does not get the starting spot back this season, does that mean his departure from the Vikings this offseason in a trade, or will he stay at least until the end of his contract in 2006?


    It would be insane to let bennett stay and finish his contract on the bench, when we could get something in a trade for him. Sure, we aren't gonna get a 1st for him, or I should say we probably won't, but even a 2nd or 3rd would be good enough. Remember that both bennett and onterrio will only have 1 year left on their contracts at the end of this year, so obviously one of them needs to be traded, especially with how well MM is playing.

    I think it is obvious that bennett will be traded, but a better question would be, what do we do with onterrio? With MM playing so well, he will more than likely stay the main RB. Obviously onterrio will be a starter for some team eventually and he knows that. If we keep starting MM, onterrio will more than likely wait and play out his contract, so he can be a FA in a few years and get a big contract from someone else, or else he will demand a trade also. It would be nice to be able to sign him at the end of this year, to a decent size contract(not huge though), so he doesn't walk at the end of next year. Then let him and MM both play, even though I like having the feature RB better than 2 guys.

    It is looking like we will probably trade one, let the other play out his final year of the contract, and keep starting MM in the future.

  8. #18
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    Look at how this whole thing progressed. Tice is awfully fiesty. This guy that asked the question could have very well be the guy who wrote the article that said "It is just a Matter of Time Before Bennett becomes the Starter" that Tice was referring to at the Press Conference. Tice doesn't like the reporters stirring up the pot.

    Q: You said you wanted to be very careful about playing Michael Bennett in this last game.
    A: Well I think it's pretty straightforward. Michael hasn't played yet this year; we're on a roll rhythm-wise offensively. I noticed that yesterday when I tried to get the perfect back in for the perfect play, which we're already doing with our tight ends, which John (Tice) has been manufacturing over the last four weeks, that we lost some rhythm and we were getting plays off a little late. That's when I decided we weren't going to do that, so that's pretty simple. It had nothing to do with protecting a player; it had to do with I felt it was screwing our rhythm up. Mike will get his chances. Right now Mike has to earn his way back onto the field. Does that mean participating in special teams returning kicks? It probably does to be honest with you. You know the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it?" Well I think that comes into play in this situation. The young man (Mewelde Moore) is playing very good football for us. We are winning, and we are very productive right now. Is that anything against Mike? No, it's a compliment to #30, and it's a compliment to the running backs coach Dean Dalton, who is able to get so many players ready to play at a high level. And what do we do in two weeks when Onterrio Smith comes back? Onterrio was on fire when he got suspended. So Mike has to earn his way back into the fold. I read someone wrote it's just a matter of time before Mike Bennett starts. I don't think I would print that if I were any of you guys because at this point right now I don't have any inclination of starting him. He has to earn his reps back, and the way you earn your reps back is the same way that Raonall Smith has earned his reps. Stay healthy, be consistent, be a producer, be a consistent producer, and when you're afforded an opportunity, go out and make something happen. It's nothing against Mike Bennett. I think we all love Mike Bennett, but the reality is we're 5-1 and we have good rhythm offensively. Why mess with it? I don't want you guys to look at that situation the wrong way. I think maybe some are.

    He didn't say Bennett can't earn his job back. He does expect him to perform though.

  9. #19
    muchluv4smoot's Avatar
    muchluv4smoot is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,318

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    "snowinapril" wrote:
    Look at how this whole thing progressed. Tice is awfully fiesty. This guy that asked the question could have very well be the guy who wrote the article that said "It is just a Matter of Time Before Bennett becomes the Starter" that Tice was referring to at the Press Conference. Tice doesn't like the reporters stirring up the pot.

    Q: You said you wanted to be very careful about playing Michael Bennett in this last game.
    A: Well I think it's pretty straightforward. Michael hasn't played yet this year; we're on a roll rhythm-wise offensively. I noticed that yesterday when I tried to get the perfect back in for the perfect play, which we're already doing with our tight ends, which John (Tice) has been manufacturing over the last four weeks, that we lost some rhythm and we were getting plays off a little late. That's when I decided we weren't going to do that, so that's pretty simple. It had nothing to do with protecting a player; it had to do with I felt it was screwing our rhythm up. Mike will get his chances. Right now Mike has to earn his way back onto the field. Does that mean participating in special teams returning kicks? It probably does to be honest with you. You know the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it?" Well I think that comes into play in this situation. The young man (Mewelde Moore) is playing very good football for us. We are winning, and we are very productive right now. Is that anything against Mike? No, it's a compliment to #30, and it's a compliment to the running backs coach Dean Dalton, who is able to get so many players ready to play at a high level. And what do we do in two weeks when Onterrio Smith comes back? Onterrio was on fire when he got suspended. So Mike has to earn his way back into the fold. I read someone wrote it's just a matter of time before Mike Bennett starts. I don't think I would print that if I were any of you guys because at this point right now I don't have any inclination of starting him. He has to earn his reps back, and the way you earn your reps back is the same way that Raonall Smith has earned his reps. Stay healthy, be consistent, be a producer, be a consistent producer, and when you're afforded an opportunity, go out and make something happen. It's nothing against Mike Bennett. I think we all love Mike Bennett, but the reality is we're 5-1 and we have good rhythm offensively. Why mess with it? I don't want you guys to look at that situation the wrong way. I think maybe some are.

    He didn't say Bennett can't earn his job back. He does expect him to perform though.


    There is no way bennett can earn his job back from mewelde moore, no way in h*ll. Bennett can't do the things that mewelde can. MM is a prefect fit for our offense. Sure bennett is fast and can break some long runs, which MM isn't as good at, but bennett is not the overall RB that MM is. IMO, we would be hurting our offense, by having bennett as our starter instead of MM.

  10. #20
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    The Mwelde Bandwagon

    Last year, I listen to the PC on Mondays at Viking.com and thought Tice was an idiot for saying what he says.

    But listening to him this year, I can see now he is the Puppet Master here. He leads these reporter where he wants to and never really gives up his true position on anything. It keeps the opponents from knowing too much info.

    Example: He did a pretty good job with the Moss playing thing last week. He told us Moss was running on the treadmill at 23MPH and it was a game time decision. Those are 2 extremes.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Adrian Peterson Bandwagon
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 07:27 AM
  2. Bears Bandwagon
    By PurpleGator in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-16-2007, 05:48 AM
  3. Ever see 63,000 Bandwagon fans ?
    By vikesoto in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-14-2006, 12:53 PM
  4. Mwelde Moore
    By Justin311 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 08-05-2005, 05:35 AM
  5. Funny Bandwagon Article.
    By hawaiianvike21 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-12-2003, 11:03 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
  •