Could Vanderjagt be hurt

[LittleBoyBlue]

3rd grade at 40 years old. Hang in there dude, you are going to finish high school by the time you are 175!

Yes, yes... you sure showed me... move along...

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree about the 11 days to get another K ready. However. If V has a bad day, but does not cost us the game. Would you really want a new K during the playoff push. And with our history of bad K's. Would you want a new guy...what if he misses COSTING us a loss and playoff spot. When V could have made it due to his past success. Maybe, just maybe he was in little funk, but now over it in a pressure kick situation.
Tough call either way.

Would it make you feel better if Vandy missed it in the playoffs like he did last year with the Colts? I just think he needs to start showing the coaching staff both in games and at practice that he has corrected the problem. As I said my hope is he will start making the kicks but I think it has to be sooner rather than later.

 

[Stautner]

No kidding? We got a guy who practices like crap to boot. He fully acknowledges this. That's insane.

We've been bitten. I'm running out of peroxide.

32 NFL teams passed up on Romo. He was brought in to replace the ever famous "proven" Bledsoe, whom, I might add, was considered very worthy, myself included.

If he's practiced poorly for 8 years and is still the best kicker in history that shouldn't be a concern.

Yes, we have been bitten - all I'm saying is that we could bite ourselves even worse if we aren't careful. History shows Vandy is a career 80% + kicker and a new guy could prove to be a 60% kicker. We at least know Vandy has the potential to be much better than that.

Romo is a very poor example to use because he is clearly the exception rather than the rule. Very few teams find that kind of success with a guy like Romo.

BOTTOM LINE: You guys are taking me wrong AND, I think, looking at only one side of the issue.

You are taking me wrong because I am NOT saying Vandy should be the man no matter what or that he is irreplaceable, I'm only saying that replacing him isn't a simple, unquestioned no-brainer.

You are looking at only one side of the issue because you are concentrating solely on Vandy without giving consideration to the replacement. Contrary to what some believe ANYONE can't do the job.

 

[AbeBeta]

Yes, yes... you sure showed me... move along...

You are just saying that because recess is over. I hope all the typing didn't prevent you from having your orange juice. You'll be less grumpy after your nap.

 

[Seven]

If he's practiced poorly for 8 years and is still the best kicker in history that shouldn't be a concern.

Yes, we have been bitten - all I'm saying is that we could bite ourselves even worse if we aren't careful. History shows Vandy is a career 80% + kicker and a new guy could prove to be a 60% kicker. We at least know Vandy has the potential to be much better than that.

Romo is a very poor example to use because he is clearly the exception rather than the rule. Very few teams find that kind of success with a guy like Romo.

BOTTOM LINE: You guys are taking me wrong AND, I think, looking at only one side of the issue.

You are taking me wrong because I am NOT saying Vandy should be the man no matter what or that he is irreplaceable, I'm only saying that replacing him isn't a simple, unquestioned no-brainer.

You are looking at only one side of the issue because you are concentrating solely on Vandy without giving consideration to the replacement. Contrary to what some believe ANYONE can't do the job.

This I can agree with, BUT, If a guy is brought in and he misses.......big moldy. Vandershank misses too.
Do we have a new guy miss or a seasoned ,wotrthy, vet miss.....in a playoff situation? I mean, pick your poison. I'm getting ahead of myself here but it is a possibility. In reality, the real football world, our chances of making a game winning field goal with Ray Finkle(Vandershank) or a newbie are just about equal, IMO. Give me Cundiff. I've more faith in him than anyone we've had in here.
How sad is that?

And for the record, I don't give a rats rump about history. I'm into 2006 and our chances at coming together, finally.

 

[Stautner]

This I can agree with, BUT, If a guy is brought in and he misses.......big moldy. Vandershank misses too.
Do we have a new guy miss or a seasoned ,wotrthy, vet miss.....in a playoff situation? I mean, pick your poison. I'm getting ahead of myself here but it is a possibility. In reality, the real football world, our chances of making a game winning field goal with Vandershank or a newbie are just about equal, IMO. Give me Cundiff. I've more faith in him than anyone we've had in here.
How sad is that?

You guys keep talking about the playoffs and we still have 6 games left.

The difference between missing FG's with Vandy now as opposed to missing them with a young guy is that we KNOW Vandy has the upside of being the best kicker in history and is capable of being an 80-90% kicker, whereas with a young guy we don't know squat, including whether he is even capable of 60-70% or if he will fade into being a 50% kicker as the season goes on.

It's like asking the difference between TO and Hurd. TO isn't having his strongest season by a long shot and he has dropped some passes, but we know his upside. With Hurd we just don't know if he would be capable of anything close to TO if he were to play regularly, and we know TO can come up huge for us at anytime because we've seen him do it.

 

[sf49rh8r]

You guys keep talking about the playoffs and we still have 6 games left.

The difference between missing FG's with Vandy now as opposed to missing them with a young guy is that we KNOW Vandy has the upside of being the best kicker in history and is capable of being an 80-90% kicker, whereas with a young guy we don't know squat, including whether he is even capable of 60-70% or if he will fade into being a 50% kicker as the season goes on.

It's like asking the difference between TO and Hurd. TO isn't having his strongest season by a long shot and he has dropped some passes, but we know his upside. With Hurd we just don't know if he would be capable of anything close to TO if he were to play regularly, and we know TO can come up huge for us at anytime because we've seen him do it.

STOP THAT!!!!! Making sense and being rational won't be allowed.

 

[Seven]

You guys keep talking about the playoffs and we still have 6 games left.

I said it was a possibility. Which is much better than the constant reminder of HISTORY. With possibility comes chance. With history there is none.

The difference between missing FG's with Vandy now as opposed to missing them with a young guy is that we KNOW Vandy has the upside of being the best kicker in history and is capable of being an 80-90% kicker, whereas with a young guy we don't know squat, including whether he is even capable of 60-70% or if he will fade into being a 50% kicker as the season goes on.

There is no difference when you keep bringing up history. I don't want to know what Finkle was capable of 1, 2 , 3 years ago. I'm still waiting for his upside. Where is it? Do you know? Looks like we really don't know squat about Finkle do we? If you want to use history+ capability let's throw in last years playoff miss, wide right mind you, by none other than Finkle. You say we'd know squat about a new guy, what do we know about Finkle other than history, some form of upside we haven't seen yet, he misses kicks and it's always right. You use the 60-70% for a new guy. I don't care about kickers and their percentages unless their making kicks. Kicks that matter. Those percentages are what makes a kicker.

It's like asking the difference between TO and Hurd. TO isn't having his strongest season by a long shot and he has dropped some passes, but we know his upside. With Hurd we just don't know if he would be capable of anything close to TO if he were to play regularly, and we know TO can come up huge for us at anytime because we've seen him do it.

First.....#81 and Hurd practice well. Finkle does not and has admitted as such. (That just baffles me.) #81 and Hurd are both new to this Dallas gig with a new offense. Finkle has to kick. Just like he would for any other NFL team out there. Two steps back and to the left. Doesn't really change much.


Second, #81 has produced. Almost enough to compensate for some stupid antics and drops. Hurd and #81 get one helluva lot more chances at making good. Finkle may get ONE. That's the sad truth here.

 

[Stautner]

I said it was a possibility. Which is much better than the constant reminder of HISTORY. With possibility comes chance. With history there is none.



There is no difference when you keep bringing up history. I don't want to know what Finkle was capable of 1, 2 , 3 years ago. I'm still waiting for his upside. Where is it? Do you know? Looks like we really don't know squat about Finkle do we? If you want to use history+ capability let's throw in last years playoff miss, wide right mind you, by none other than Finkle. You say we'd know squat about a new guy, what do we know about Finkle other than history, some form of upside we haven't seen yet, he misses kicks and it's always right. You use the 60-70% for a new guy. I don't care about kickers and their percentages unless their making kicks. Kicks that matter. Those percentages are what makes a kicker.



First.....TO and Hurd practice well. Finkle does not and has admitted as such. (That just baffles me.) #81 and Hurd are both new to this Dallas gig with a new offense. Finkle has to kick. Just like he would for any other NFL team out there. Two steps back and to the left. Doesn't really change much.


Second, #81 has produced. Almost enough to compensate for some stupid antics and drops. Hurd and #81 get one helluva lot more chances at making good. Finkle may get ONE. That's the sad truth here.

Try a little logic next time you post.

The "possible" you talk about is speculation - hell it's "possible" that a high school kicker can come in do the job, but would that be a good choice?

It's also "possible" that a new kicker may fail on 50% of his kicks - you see your logic is weak because you fail to recognize that with "possibility" the "chance" you talk about includes the "chance" of miserable failure.

The history I talk about doesn't merely suggest possiblity, it's actual PROOF, and proof trumps possibility every time.

In other words, while Vandy might not be kicking well now, we at least know he can do it, whereas with a new kicker we don't know that at all. A new kicker may not even be capable of 60% accuracy.

As for Vandy being a poor practice player, I've already addressed that. He has always been a poor practice player yet he is the most accurate kicker in history. To suggest that is his downfall all of a sudden after all these years is ridiculous.

 

[Seven]

Try a little logic next time you post.

The "possible" you talk about is speculation - hell it's "possible" that a high school kicker can come in do the job, but would that be a good choice?

Possible, speculation, a shot in the dark. Word smith it any way you want. Just as much a speculation as Finkle missing another one. Duh? If a high school kicker does the job.....sign him up. BTW...that was a really stupid reference.

It's also "possible" that a new kicker may fail on 50% of his kicks - you see your logic is weak because you fail to recognize that with "possibility" the "chance" you talk about includes the "chance" of miserable failure.

HEY!!! Kinda like Finkle. Remove your foot. It's getting hard to understand you.

The history I talk about doesn't merely suggest possiblity, it's actual PROOF, and proof trumps possibility every time.

PROOF? PROOF? Of what? Finkle has good percentages but single handedly took his team out of the playoffs? Wide right? Nice. Keep 'em coming. Pretty soon I'l be able to quit responding on my own behalf. Good job, Ernie.

In other words, while Vandy might not be kicking well now, we at least know he can do it, whereas with a new kicker we don't know that at all. A new kicker may not even be capable of 60% accuracy.

No, we don't know he can do it because the concrete evidence suggests otherwise. Keep throwing in the "He's not kicking well now" schtick. You're eyes will be as wide(pun intended) as Dungy's were.

As for Vandy being a poor practice player, I've already addressed that. He has always been a poor practice player yet he is the most accurate kicker in history. To suggest that is his downfall all of a sudden after all these years is ridiculous.

Alright Ernie, S L O W E R for you...

HISTORY is yesterdays proof. He has not proven anything this year except he sucks. Bad. Consistently wide right. Now, you want to "address" that pesky little practice thing again? After all, it seems if you do, then it's a done deal. Don't minimize it because you've "addressed" it.

We know Finkle has done it. Has Schmas. TODAY. NOW. Thursday would be a plus and every Sunday after that. Take your percentages, subtract the 20-40yd chippers and what do you have? Your percentages are skewed. Which in-turn skews your "history" and somewhere in there lies the truth you seem to let escape you. For the Dallas Cowboys.....He's been below average when it has mattered. And that's all that matters. That's his job.