Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85
  1. #21
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,218

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Chiller Speak, much like Denny Speak, should be taken with a certain amount of skepticism.
    ;D
    :P

    Granted I can see that Sharper has lost some speed (not tackling ability) but what happened here is Childress/Tomlin changed the scheme from 2005 to 2006 as well. Then he excelled.

    Sharper is great when he is allowed to "free range". He was allowed to do that in GB & was handcuffed here in 2005 until Tice tore half the pages out of Cottrell's playbook.

    What we have is a player who once "fit the scheme" but when Childress took over & the scheme was changed, he did not excel in that scheme.

    It's just another prime example of not adjusting a scheme to coincide with the strength of your players. Hell, we've even seen Whinfield's numbers decline because of it.

    The biggest beeyatch I have with Childress is that he forced new schemes down our players throats instead of catering them to utilize the best "strengths & talents" of our players.

    In that respect, he has minimized, under utilized & "handcuffed" our teams potential all in the name of his., "It's my way or the highway", egotistical
    attitude.

    Childress didn't build upon what he had inherited, but rather changed every facet of the way we played football.
    I think it is a double edged sword though don't you think?

    Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few (who probably won't be around long) at the risk of slowing the kids progress who do fit the scheme, or to just go ahead and run your scheme so the guys who ultimately will have to run it for the long term will get it quicker and hope that the old vets can do a good enough job until a replacement for them can be found.

    If one were to look at it from the standpoint of the bigger picture (grander vision) then one would see that the staffs approach is probably the right one, especially as we watch some of the first draft class really starting to shine thereby negating the need for the aged vets who really don't fit the scheme.

    Of course, in all likelyhood, those very same Vets are probably gonna get you in trouble with fans who can't see that vision/focus as the vets numbers decline.

    Long story short, kindof a necessary evil if you will when a team is gutted and a new scheme is implemented.
    First off, You constantly assume, "Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few". How do you know that modifying the scheme doesn't fit the majority of the players, both young & old?

    You don't. That's a knee jerk assumption on your part.

    Secondly, when Childress took over, it was he who claimed that with the talent he had inherited, he was close to putting together a winning team.

    If you are of the "Win Now" mentality, you take what is given to you, adjust the scheme to fit the strengths of your best players, even if they are a few, because they are the playmakers. Then you bring in players that fit that adjusted scheme to compliment that play.

    What you don't do is come in, completely over haul the schemes that have been run & force all the players to learn that new scheme, because it takes some of your best players & makes them less proficient & productive. You also don't bring in players that may or may not fit the scheme.

    This is exactly what Childress has done.

    How many players on our roster in 2006 actually benefited from & excelled in 2006 as a result of the scheme changes?

    How many FA & drafted players were brought in that "fit the scheme" & didn't have to learn it?

    What type of blocking scheme did they use in Seattle when Hutch played there?

    Why is it we went from running the Tampa 2 in 2006, to a Cover 2 in 2008 & them adjusted that to play more man-on-man in the later part of the season?

    Why is it that 3 years after implementing the ZB scheme does most of our line is still struggling with it? One would have to think that when you have a 100 million dollar line, you would run a scheme that they are all proficient at running. Not Childress.

    Yet, I have not seen veteran players or coaches brought in who can run the ZB offensive line. Why?






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

  2. #22
    jessejames09's Avatar
    jessejames09 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,231

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Chiller Speak, much like Denny Speak, should be taken with a certain amount of skepticism.
    ;D
    :P

    Granted I can see that Sharper has lost some speed (not tackling ability) but what happened here is Childress/Tomlin changed the scheme from 2005 to 2006 as well. Then he excelled.

    Sharper is great when he is allowed to "free range". He was allowed to do that in GB & was handcuffed here in 2005 until Tice tore half the pages out of Cottrell's playbook.

    What we have is a player who once "fit the scheme" but when Childress took over & the scheme was changed, he did not excel in that scheme.

    It's just another prime example of not adjusting a scheme to coincide with the strength of your players. Hell, we've even seen Whinfield's numbers decline because of it.

    The biggest beeyatch I have with Childress is that he forced new schemes down our players throats instead of catering them to utilize the best "strengths & talents" of our players.

    In that respect, he has minimized, under utilized & "handcuffed" our teams potential all in the name of his., "It's my way or the highway", egotistical
    attitude.

    Childress didn't build upon what he had inherited, but rather changed every facet of the way we played football.
    I think it is a double edged sword though don't you think?

    Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few (who probably won't be around long) at the risk of slowing the kids progress who do fit the scheme, or to just go ahead and run your scheme so the guys who ultimately will have to run it for the long term will get it quicker and hope that the old vets can do a good enough job until a replacement for them can be found.

    If one were to look at it from the standpoint of the bigger picture (grander vision) then one would see that the staffs approach is probably the right one, especially as we watch some of the first draft class really starting to shine thereby negating the need for the aged vets who really don't fit the scheme.

    Of course, in all likelyhood, those very same Vets are probably gonna get you in trouble with fans who can't see that vision/focus as the vets numbers decline.

    Long story short, kindof a necessary evil if you will when a team is gutted and a new scheme is implemented.
    First off, You constantly assume, "Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few". How do you know that modifying the scheme doesn't fit the majority of the players, both young & old?

    You don't. That's a knee jerk assumption on your part.

    Secondly, when Childress took over, it was he who claimed that with the talent he had inherited, he was close to putting together a winning team.

    If you are of the "Win Now" mentality, you take what is given to you, adjust the scheme to fit the strengths of your best players, even if they are a few, because they are the playmakers. Then you bring in players that fit that adjusted scheme to compliment that play.

    What you don't do is come in, completely over haul the schemes that have been run & force all the players to learn that new scheme, because it takes some of your best players & makes them less proficient & productive. You also don't bring in players that may or may not fit the scheme.

    This is exactly what Childress has done.

    How many players on our roster in 2006 actually benefited from & excelled in 2006 as a result of the scheme changes?

    How many FA & drafted players were brought in that "fit the scheme" & didn't have to learn it?

    What type of blocking scheme did they use in Seattle when Hutch played there?

    Why is it we went from running the Tampa 2 in 2006, to a Cover 2 in 2008 & them adjusted that to play more man-on-man in the later part of the season?

    Why is it that 3 years after implementing the ZB scheme does most of our line is still struggling with it? One would have to think that when you have a 100 million dollar line, you would run a scheme that they are all proficient at running. Not Childress.

    Yet, I have not seen veteran players or coaches brought in who can run the ZB offensive line. Why?







    That was a really good post.


    One thing though, I think tampa 2 and cover 2 are both terms for the same defense.

  3. #23
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Chiller Speak, much like Denny Speak, should be taken with a certain amount of skepticism.
    ;D
    :P

    Granted I can see that Sharper has lost some speed (not tackling ability) but what happened here is Childress/Tomlin changed the scheme from 2005 to 2006 as well. Then he excelled.

    Sharper is great when he is allowed to "free range". He was allowed to do that in GB & was handcuffed here in 2005 until Tice tore half the pages out of Cottrell's playbook.

    What we have is a player who once "fit the scheme" but when Childress took over & the scheme was changed, he did not excel in that scheme.

    It's just another prime example of not adjusting a scheme to coincide with the strength of your players. Hell, we've even seen Whinfield's numbers decline because of it.

    The biggest beeyatch I have with Childress is that he forced new schemes down our players throats instead of catering them to utilize the best "strengths & talents" of our players.

    In that respect, he has minimized, under utilized & "handcuffed" our teams potential all in the name of his., "It's my way or the highway", egotistical
    attitude.

    Childress didn't build upon what he had inherited, but rather changed every facet of the way we played football.
    I think it is a double edged sword though don't you think?

    Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few (who probably won't be around long) at the risk of slowing the kids progress who do fit the scheme, or to just go ahead and run your scheme so the guys who ultimately will have to run it for the long term will get it quicker and hope that the old vets can do a good enough job until a replacement for them can be found.

    If one were to look at it from the standpoint of the bigger picture (grander vision) then one would see that the staffs approach is probably the right one, especially as we watch some of the first draft class really starting to shine thereby negating the need for the aged vets who really don't fit the scheme.

    Of course, in all likelyhood, those very same Vets are probably gonna get you in trouble with fans who can't see that vision/focus as the vets numbers decline.

    Long story short, kindof a necessary evil if you will when a team is gutted and a new scheme is implemented.
    First off, You constantly assume, "Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few". How do you know that modifying the scheme doesn't fit the majority of the players, both young & old?

    You don't. That's a knee jerk assumption on your part.

    Secondly, when Childress took over, it was he who claimed that with the talent he had inherited, he was close to putting together a winning team.

    If you are of the "Win Now" mentality, you take what is given to you, adjust the scheme to fit the strengths of your best players, even if they are a few, because they are the playmakers. Then you bring in players that fit that adjusted scheme to compliment that play.

    What you don't do is come in, completely over haul the schemes that have been run & force all the players to learn that new scheme, because it takes some of your best players & makes them less proficient & productive. You also don't bring in players that may or may not fit the scheme.

    This is exactly what Childress has done.

    How many players on our roster in 2006 actually benefited from & excelled in 2006 as a result of the scheme changes?

    How many FA & drafted players were brought in that "fit the scheme" & didn't have to learn it?

    What type of blocking scheme did they use in Seattle when Hutch played there?

    Why is it we went from running the Tampa 2 in 2006, to a Cover 2 in 2008 & them adjusted that to play more man-on-man in the later part of the season?

    Why is it that 3 years after implementing the ZB scheme does most of our line is still struggling with it? One would have to think that when you have a 100 million dollar line, you would run a scheme that they are all proficient at running. Not Childress.

    Yet, I have not seen veteran players or coaches brought in who can run the ZB offensive line. Why?





    I just know there is a spreadsheet somewhere that explains all of that.

    I just hope it comes in crayon format.

  4. #24
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "singersp" wrote:
    First off, You constantly assume, "Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few". How do you know that modifying the scheme doesn't fit the majority of the players, both young & old?

    You don't. That's a knee jerk assumption on your part.
    Didn't you yourself say that Sharper didn't fit the system?

    As to who fits the system.
    I would think that all the new guys (Young and old) brought in fit the system.
    If they don't then we really need to start firing our scouts and our VP of PLayer Personnel for bringing in talent that doesn't fit it.

    Could that opinion be considered a "Knee Jerk" reaction?
    Sure, but I think one would really have to try real hard not so see that side of the discussion.

    Secondly, when Childress took over, it was he who claimed that with the talent he had inherited, he was close to putting together a winning team.
    LOL, what did you expect him to say?

    I am glad the Wilfs hired me.
    Now all I have to do is get rid of all the crappy players and we will start winning.
    Again, I think that is a weak arguement when it comes to what a guy says in a press conference.
    Very few times are they gonna give you a full truth, hell in most instances, I don't think they even give you a half truth.


    If you are of the "Win Now" mentality, you take what is given to you, adjust the scheme to fit the strengths of your best players, even if they are a few, because they are the playmakers. Then you bring in players that fit that adjusted scheme to compliment that play.
    What has this organization done over the last 3 or 4 years that leads you to think they are in a "Win Now" mode.
    Hell, I am half convinced they analyzed the risk (loss of fans) and found it acceptable to go about reshaping this team the long way instead of the Deadskins/Dallas way.

    Has it been painfull for us fans?
    Sure it has, however, they accepted the risk or they wouldn't have taken us down this road now would have they?

    What you don't do is come in, completely over haul the schemes that have been run & force all the players to learn that new scheme, because it takes some of your best players & makes them less proficient & productive. You also don't bring in players that may or may not fit the scheme.
    I guess you are right, however, isn't that what has happened?

    Look, I dont' agree with it.
    In fact I would much rather see us run a bunch of Vets out there but again, that isn't the path they elected to take.
    Just because I say I can see why they did it doesn't mean I agree with it.

    Seems you always miss that point in my posts.

    This is exactly what Childress has done.
    Thiis is exactly what the entire organization has done.
    Do you really think they would have started down this path without the buy in of the owner?

    How many players on our roster in 2006 actually benefited from & excelled in 2006 as a result of the scheme changes?
    EJ, K-will, Phat Pat, Big Mac is coming around.
    How many have gotten a new contract deal would be a better way of asking it.

    How many FA & drafted players were brought in that "fit the scheme" & didn't have to learn it?
    I believe they all have to learn it to a point, however, thier skill sets make it possible for them to not only learn it but to excell in it.

    What type of blocking scheme did they use in Seattle when Hutch played there?
    Why are you asking me a bunch of questions you know the answer to.

    Why is it we went from running the Tampa 2 in 2006, to a Cover 2 in 2008 & them adjusted that to play more man-on-man in the later part of the season?
    Why is it that some people on here still don't understand that pressing at the line to steer the reciever to the middle is part of the Cover 2 Scheme.

    Seriously, how many times do we have to have this discussion before you get it.......... ;D
    Pressure from the DL allows you to drop your LB'rs into a short zone that takes away the quick slant that the CB presses the WR into.

    Why are we seeing more press coverage?
    Cause we got more pressure with our DL allowing the LB'rs to drop back into the short zones and take the quick slant away.

    Why is it that 3 years after implementing the ZB scheme does most of our line is still struggling with it? One would have to think that when you have a 100 million dollar line, you would run a scheme that they are all proficient at running. Not Childress.
    Why is it you keep saying we struggle with the ZB scheme and yet since it was brought here our RB has gotten over 1,000 yards each year and our rushing attack keeps getting better.

    Please please, one more time for possible penetration.......the ZB scheme supports our running attack.
    Do you see us struggling with our running attack?

    Yet, I have not seen veteran players or coaches brought in who can run the ZB offensive line. Why?
    What?
    Hutch, CT (one cut back), AD (one cut back), Herrera, great in space and nice double set guy.....

    I think our OL coach does a great job with the ZB scheme.
    I don't think he has a clue about the blocking scheme we struggle with, and that by the way, was the scheme we used to run.......

    Comeon my friend.
    We keep having the same discussion over and over.
    Not saying I don't enjoy it, just wish some of it would sink in so I don't have to keep typing such long responses...... ;D
    ;D
    ;D
    ;D
    :P





    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #25
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,218

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    First off, You constantly assume, "Trying to modify your scheme you ultimately want to run just for a select few". How do you know that modifying the scheme doesn't fit the majority of the players, both young & old?

    You don't. That's a knee jerk assumption on your part.
    Didn't you yourself say that Sharper didn't fit the system?

    As to who fits the system.
    I would think that all the new guys (Young and old) brought in fit the system.
    If they don't then we really need to start firing our scouts and our VP of PLayer Personnel for bringing in talent that doesn't fit it.

    Could that opinion be considered a "Knee Jerk" reaction?
    Sure, but I think one would really have to try real hard not so see that side of the discussion.
    I said Sharper didn't fit the system under Childress. Under Tice he & Winfield were handcuffed in Cottrell's system until Tice ripped the pages out of Cotrell's handbook.

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

  6. #26
    mountainviking's Avatar
    mountainviking is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,778

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    Didn't we come to the conclusion that we were running some sort of hybrid scheme that Zone blocks in the running game but is supposed to be man in the passing game?


    Add to this the blitz every down our OL sees, and they now have to decide on the fly who is changing his man to man duty to cover that extra guy...and the limitations this scheme switching seems to have on our audibles...in addition to our coaches not trusting our QBs anyway.

    Kind of a chicken or the egg kind of question there...Is our wierd scheme holding our high priced OL back?
    Or did we overpay some of those guys to begin with?
    Could be, this is the year we make those OL moves/changes...

    You know, when a new coach comes in, the last thing he wants to say is, "We are totally rebuilding."
    Not good for tix sales.
    Kind of like the politician before the election, the new coach is trying to win the confidence of the purple masses.
    In truth, we've seen a pretty thorough rebuilding.
    Which is my guess, as to why we'll have another year with Childress...Wilf and he likely agreed on this long ago, and without our knowledge


    So, for three long years, we have been waiting for our OL to gel in the new scheme, and for tons of young talent to mature and develop...WR and QB most likely topping that list.
    During that time, a defense that started out good has gotten better.
    Yet, Our offense seems much the same...shudder to imagine what our O would look like without AP!!
    Chester is real good, but I'm not thinking he'd get the same yards vs. stacked boxes.


    Yet, Consistency is good, and perhaps, we'll see more flex in the KAO now that its been in place for 3+ years...and it does seem as though Chilldress and the FO has built a pretty good team and a good, supportive, overall locker room chemistry...with, obviously, less controversies!
    We did win the division despite missing a couple of very good, important players to injury.
    But, IMHO, it is make or break time for this offense.
    We need to see more creative plays to open up the defenses we continually face.
    And we've got to do a better job on 2 minute conversions, overall time management, and knowing when to hold 'em (play conservative) and when to fold 'em (win or lose, try something!)
    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

  7. #27
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,218

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    Secondly, when Childress took over, it was he who claimed that with the talent he had inherited, he was close to putting together a winning team.
    LOL, what did you expect him to say?

    I am glad the Wilfs hired me.
    Now all I have to do is get rid of all the crappy players and we will start winning.
    Again, I think that is a weak arguement when it comes to what a guy says in a press conference.
    Very few times are they gonna give you a full truth, hell in most instances, I don't think they even give you a half truth.

    If you are of the "Win Now" mentality, you take what is given to you, adjust the scheme to fit the strengths of your best players, even if they are a few, because they are the playmakers. Then you bring in players that fit that adjusted scheme to compliment that play.
    What has this organization done over the last 3 or 4 years that leads you to think they are in a "Win Now" mode.
    Hell, I am half convinced they analyzed the risk (loss of fans) and found it acceptable to go about reshaping this team the long way instead of the Deadskins/Dallas way.

    Has it been painfull for us fans?
    Sure it has, however, they accepted the risk or they wouldn't have taken us down this road now would have they?
    Spending big in FA & Wilf's "The time to win is now" philosophy.

    I don't think it's very easy to "build for the future" in today's NFL. With FA being what it is, elite players come & go from team to team as their contracts expire. The window of opportunity is a short one.

    By the time this team brings in & rebuilds the team, we will have lost talent in many other spots & will be trying to replace them as well. We can only hope that at some point during that time frame, we reach a point where all the pieces fit into place.

    Long-term contracts don't mean shit either. How many great players demand to be traded every year while they are still under contract?

    How many players are really interested in acquiring a ring vs. those players that go "where the money is"?

    You also have veteran players who are reaching the ends of their careers. Sure at that point we may have groomed rookies & younger players to step up & take over, but at that time those players will be denmanding more money & we won't be able to retain there services either. We will lose some of those to FA as well.


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

  8. #28
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,218

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    Why is it we went from running the Tampa 2 in 2006, to a Cover 2 in 2008 & them adjusted that to play more man-on-man in the later part of the season?
    Why is it that some people on here still don't understand that pressing at the line to steer the reciever to the middle is part of the Cover 2 Scheme.

    Seriously, how many times do we have to have this discussion before you get it.......... ;D

    Pressure from the DL allows you to drop your LB'rs into a short zone that takes away the quick slant that the CB presses the WR into.

    Why are we seeing more press coverage?
    Cause we got more pressure with our DL allowing the LB'rs to drop back into the short zones and take the quick slant away.
    I don't know about you, but even with the added pressure our LB's are still getting eaten alive by the quick slant.

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

  9. #29
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,218

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    Why is it that 3 years after implementing the ZB scheme does most of our line is still struggling with it? One would have to think that when you have a 100 million dollar line, you would run a scheme that they are all proficient at running. Not Childress.
    Why is it you keep saying we struggle with the ZB scheme and yet since it was brought here our RB has gotten over 1,000 yards each year and our rushing attack keeps getting better.

    Please please, one more time for possible penetration.......the ZB scheme supports our running attack.
    Do you see us struggling with our running attack?
    It may support our running game somewhat, but our offensive blocking scheme doesn't do jack shit for it in the passing game. Our line has given up 124 sacks in the past 3 years even though we are predominantly a running team.

    Where I see us struggling most in our running game is when we attempt to run AD straight up the gut. Many times he is stopped for a loss or for minimal game.

    Taylor is more suited for that role, IMO. AD is much more of a cut-back runner than Taylor is. Yet I see us trying to use AD too often to try & run up the gut when I think Taylor should be doing that job.

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

  10. #30
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,218

    Re: VikingTw's Season Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Yet, I have not seen veteran players or coaches brought in who can run the ZB offensive line. Why?
    What?
    Hutch, CT (one cut back), AD (one cut back), Herrera, great in space and nice double set guy.....

    I think our OL coach does a great job with the ZB scheme.
    I don't think he has a clue about the blocking scheme we struggle with, and that by the way, was the scheme we used to run.......

    Comeon my friend.

    We keep having the same discussion over and over.
    Not saying I don't enjoy it, just wish some of it would sink in so I don't have to keep typing such long responses...... ;D
    ;D
    ;D
    ;D
    :P
    When I refer to our ZB scheme on the offensive line, I'm referring to our overall scheme in both run & pass blocking. Not just the running side of it. Call it what you will, ZB, ZB hybrid or a mixture of many, but you know what I'm talking about.

    If you think our OL coach is only good at the run blocking side of our game & not the pass blocking side, then what the hell is he even doing attempting to coach our line?

    Unless we run the ball 100% of the time, get him the hell out & get somebody qualified that can really coach.

    ZB isn't necessarily our only option for a successful run game. GB was able to buld a successful & very good front line with young/new players in a years time & have had great success running the ball with Ryan Grant who ran for 956 yards in 12 games in 2007 & 1203 yards in 2008.

    Hell, Grant was virtually an unknown at the start of the 2007 season. AD was a household name.

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

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Marrdro's Roster Analysis (New Roster Analysis Added)
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 07:27 PM
  2. Analysis of all RBs with >100 yd games
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2006, 09:49 PM
  3. BCS Analysis
    By Prophet in forum College Ball
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2006, 08:21 AM
  4. 2005 Season Analysis Game 1
    By Justin311 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2005, 09:03 AM
  5. Analysis: Packer's D.
    By ItalianStallion in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 02:41 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
  •