PDA

View Full Version : Is Adam Vinatieri a HOFer?


bigbluedefense
11-01-2006, 03:39 PM
Is he a HOFer? I can't recall a kicker ever being as clutch as this guy. And I can't recall a kicker ever having as much impact on a game as Vinatieri has over the course of his career. He's hit more big game FGs than anyone. He was a legitimate SB MVP nominee. The guy is simply clutch.

Now I know that kickers are not in the HOF (outside one guy I believe who was a qb and kicker in the 30s), but I think this guy deserves to be the first kicker in the HOF. If kickers don't get in just because theyre kickers, then take the position out of the game. They are very important to the success of a team, and Vinatieri is the perfect example of it. The Pats don't win 2 of their 3 SBs without him. And he's won 2 games for Indy this year alone. Am I alone in this sentiment? And do you guys think he'll get in?

Denver Bronco99
11-01-2006, 03:44 PM
i mean i dont think so...as morten anderson is the #1 scorer ALL TIME

i think that will hold vinateri out as he isnt the best kicker just the best clutch

njx9
11-01-2006, 03:47 PM
and 80ish% career kicker? meh. his great playoff moments aside (a lot of players have had amazing playoff performances and won't get in), he just wasn't all that good over his entire career. if any kicker gets in, it should be morten anderson.

thegame26
11-01-2006, 03:51 PM
I would put both of the anderson boys and mark mosely(who won the MVP of the league) in before him. He is simply and average career kicker over his career

bigbluedefense
11-01-2006, 03:57 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.

thegame26
11-01-2006, 04:00 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.


The only impressive clutch kick of his was the kick in the snow against oakland.

Zim3031
11-01-2006, 04:02 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.


The only impressive clutch kick of his was the kick in the snow against oakland.

Kicking game winners in the biggest game possible isn't impressive?? :shock:

Ward
11-01-2006, 04:03 PM
Adam Vinatieri is important to the history of the NFL, therefore SHOULD get in. Not saying he will, just think he should.

thegame26
11-01-2006, 04:04 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.


The only impressive clutch kick of his was the kick in the snow against oakland.

Kicking game winners in the biggest game possible isn't impressive?? :shock:

They were all very makeable but thats just me

Zim3031
11-01-2006, 04:06 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.


The only impressive clutch kick of his was the kick in the snow against oakland.

Kicking game winners in the biggest game possible isn't impressive?? :shock:

They were all very makeable but thats just me

So 48 yard and 41 yard field goals to WIN the superbowl are very makeable???

thegame26
11-01-2006, 04:08 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.


The only impressive clutch kick of his was the kick in the snow against oakland.

Kicking game winners in the biggest game possible isn't impressive?? :shock:

They were all very makeable but thats just me

So 48 yard and 41 yard field goals to WIN the superbowl are very makeable???


Yeah

Basileus777
11-01-2006, 04:12 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.

IIRC Anderson has kicked more game winning fgs than any other kicker in NFL. He also had that game winning kick that got Atlanta into the Superbowl.

bigbluedefense
11-01-2006, 04:22 PM
I think when judging a kicker, you can't look at his "numbers". If that were the case, Mike Vanderjagt would be the best kicker in the game, but he is obviously not. What separates the boys from the men in terms of kicking (i know, easy joke here) is how well they perform in the clutch. Its not how many meaningless FGs you can make, its all about making the important ones.

And Vinatieri does it time and time again. He may miss you a FG when youre up 21-3, but the man is golden when youre down 3 with 2 seconds left on the clock from 50 out. Thats ultimately what you want out of your kicker. You want a guy you know can hit it when it counts. And no one ever has done it like Vinatieri. Forget the numbers, numbers don't mean jack here.

Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No. I think Vinatieri's impact on big games makes him a better candidate. The game in NE against Oakland, the 2 SBs, the countless clutch kicks in between, the man has come up big when you needed it the most.

IIRC Anderson has kicked more game winning fgs than any other kicker in NFL. He also had that game winning kick that got Atlanta into the Superbowl.

When you play as long as he has, thats gonna happen. And his most memorable kick was the one you just mentioned. As long as he's played, thats pretty much THE kick of his career. Vinatieri in a far shorter career has at least 4 kicks that were similar to that one. Think about that.

Dam8610
11-01-2006, 04:31 PM
Vinatieri's is a case in which the "signature play", or in this case, plays, that certain moronic HOF voters look for would be the thing to put him over the top if he got in.

Splat
11-01-2006, 04:31 PM
JAN STENERUD = First and only "pure" placekicker to enter HOF he played for the Chiefs.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=203

yourfavestoner
11-01-2006, 04:44 PM
Kickers should have their own Hall of Fame.

Ravens1991
11-01-2006, 04:47 PM
Kickers should have their own Hall of Fame.


I like that idea.

PACKmanN
11-01-2006, 04:56 PM
Kickers should have their own Hall of Fame.


I like that idea. add punters in there too. Has a punter ever made the HOF?

njx9
11-01-2006, 04:57 PM
Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No.

do you honestly remember enough of morten anderson's kicks to make that sort of statement?

i mean, ignoring most stats, anderson has BY FAR more 50+ yard field goals than anyone ever, and i find it difficult to beieve that the argument could be made that it's due to longevity. i mean, he couldn't hit from 50 if his life depended on it, and hasn't been able to for several years now (zero in the last four years, 5 in the last 7).

i don't buy that a guy who hasn't, historically, been a very good regular season kicker should get in just because of a couple of playoff appearances. unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that Terrell Davis should get in for the same reason.

thegame26
11-01-2006, 05:01 PM
Kickers should have their own Hall of Fame.


I like that idea. add punters in there too. Has a punter ever made the HOF?

there is one in it

bigbluedefense
11-01-2006, 05:02 PM
Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No.

do you honestly remember enough of morten anderson's kicks to make that sort of statement?

i mean, ignoring most stats, anderson has BY FAR more 50+ yard field goals than anyone ever, and i find it difficult to beieve that the argument could be made that it's due to longevity. i mean, he couldn't hit from 50 if his life depended on it, and hasn't been able to for several years now (zero in the last four years, 5 in the last 7).

i don't buy that a guy who hasn't, historically, been a very good regular season kicker should get in just because of a couple of playoff appearances. unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that Terrell Davis should get in for the same reason.

Thats a fair argument. I can't honestly say I can recall all of Morten Anderson's career, so Im wrong for saying that. But you have to agree, that Vinatieri most likely has had more historical significance with his kicks compared to Anderson. I can't say that for sure of course, but we've never seen a kicker get this much attention by the public and players alike. That in itself should validate Vinatieri as more than just a good playoff kicker. The Pats franchised him last year. Franchised a KICKER. Think about that. Obviously he's much more than just a good playoff kicker for NE to do that.

thegame26
11-01-2006, 05:16 PM
Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No.

do you honestly remember enough of morten anderson's kicks to make that sort of statement?

i mean, ignoring most stats, anderson has BY FAR more 50+ yard field goals than anyone ever, and i find it difficult to beieve that the argument could be made that it's due to longevity. i mean, he couldn't hit from 50 if his life depended on it, and hasn't been able to for several years now (zero in the last four years, 5 in the last 7).

i don't buy that a guy who hasn't, historically, been a very good regular season kicker should get in just because of a couple of playoff appearances. unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that Terrell Davis should get in for the same reason.

Thats a fair argument. I can't honestly say I can recall all of Morten Anderson's career, so Im wrong for saying that. But you have to agree, that Vinatieri most likely has had more historical significance with his kicks compared to Anderson. I can't say that for sure of course, but we've never seen a kicker get this much attention by the public and players alike. That in itself should validate Vinatieri as more than just a good playoff kicker. The Pats franchised him last year. Franchised a KICKER. Think about that. Obviously he's much more than just a good playoff kicker for NE to do that.

Yet he doesnt play for them anymore

draftguru151
11-01-2006, 05:32 PM
I definately think he should, and he probably will. All those game winning kicks, without him the Pats don't have 3 SBs.

njx9
11-01-2006, 06:27 PM
Morton Anderson has had a long career and racked up stats with it, but has he had as many big moments as Vinatieri? No.

do you honestly remember enough of morten anderson's kicks to make that sort of statement?

i mean, ignoring most stats, anderson has BY FAR more 50+ yard field goals than anyone ever, and i find it difficult to beieve that the argument could be made that it's due to longevity. i mean, he couldn't hit from 50 if his life depended on it, and hasn't been able to for several years now (zero in the last four years, 5 in the last 7).

i don't buy that a guy who hasn't, historically, been a very good regular season kicker should get in just because of a couple of playoff appearances. unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that Terrell Davis should get in for the same reason.

Thats a fair argument. I can't honestly say I can recall all of Morten Anderson's career, so Im wrong for saying that. But you have to agree, that Vinatieri most likely has had more historical significance with his kicks compared to Anderson. I can't say that for sure of course, but we've never seen a kicker get this much attention by the public and players alike. That in itself should validate Vinatieri as more than just a good playoff kicker. The Pats franchised him last year. Franchised a KICKER. Think about that. Obviously he's much more than just a good playoff kicker for NE to do that.

for sure. i dunno... i just have a hard time seeing vinatieri as a good enough career kicker to justify his inclusion. he's had a few great kicks lately, but isn't the hall about sustained greatness? i mean, just 4 short years ago, vinatieri was not only a 70% kicker, but he only made 50% from 30-39. he's only had 3 seasons in his career in which he connected with more than 85% of his kicks. clearly numbers are never anything, but i think they have to play a part here. interestingly, he's never tried more than 3 kicks over 50 in a season and never made more than 2 of them.

*shrug* i dunno. i'm just unconvinced that you can justify calling the guy one of the best kickers (really, in this case, the best) of all time based on a handful of kicks in a career of hundreds.

njx9
11-01-2006, 06:28 PM
I definately think he should, and he probably will. All those game winning kicks, without him the Pats don't have 3 SBs.

without terrell davis, the broncos are 0-6 in the super bowl. are you going to support his candidacy as well?

11-01-2006, 06:31 PM
I fully expect him to get in and deservingly so.

njx9
11-01-2006, 06:33 PM
I fully expect him to get in and deservingly so.

this would be so many rolling eyes if i hadn't promised sweetnees.

why do you expect him to? what has he done that's hall worthy?

11-01-2006, 06:46 PM
I fully expect him to get in and deservingly so.

this would be so many rolling eyes if i hadn't promised sweetnees.

why do you expect him to? what has he done that's hall worthy?

I expect him to simply because of the Super Bowl winning kicks. I fully expect his career percentage of 82.7% to increase over the next few years because he plays at least half his games in a dome rather than in New England. He is also the most clutch kicker in NFL history in most people's minds. If he gets his percentage up like I'm expect him to, then he should get in. I think he and Morten Anderson are the only kickers that should be in.

njx9
11-01-2006, 07:01 PM
I fully expect him to get in and deservingly so.

this would be so many rolling eyes if i hadn't promised sweetnees.

why do you expect him to? what has he done that's hall worthy?

I expect him to simply because of the Super Bowl winning kicks. I fully expect his career percentage of 82.7% to increase over the next few years because he plays at least half his games in a dome rather than in New England. He is also the most clutch kicker in NFL history in most people's minds. If he gets his percentage up like I'm expect him to, then he should get in. I think he and Morten Anderson are the only kickers that should be in.

fantastic :)

RCAChainGang
11-01-2006, 07:48 PM
hell yes

PalmerToCJ
11-01-2006, 07:58 PM
He's made three of the most clutch kicks in the entire history of the NFL and was a big part of the Patriots dynasty.

Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

RCAChainGang
11-01-2006, 08:02 PM
He's made three of the most clutch kicks in the entire history of the NFL and was a big part of the Patriots dynasty.

Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

agreed...

yourfavestoner
11-01-2006, 09:21 PM
I guess I could say that I'm pretty against kickers being in the Hall of Fame. For the most part, for every big kick they've made, they'd had one that has costed their team a game. Jan Stenerud is a Hall of Fame kicker, and he missed one of the most important kicks of his life, in the 1971 AFC divisional playoff game against the Dolphins.

Remember, too, that Viniatieri missed two field goals in the Superbowl against the Panthers. If he would have made those two routine kicks, they wouldn't have needed to drive down at the end of the game to kick the game winner.

Dam8610
11-01-2006, 09:31 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

duckseason
11-01-2006, 09:33 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

He is. Kickers have nothing to do with that.

Dam8610
11-01-2006, 09:34 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

He is. Kickers have nothing to do with that.

Yeah, Vinatieri has NOTHING to do with making the kicks that won Brady the championships that cause him to be overrated...

duckseason
11-01-2006, 09:39 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

He is. Kickers have nothing to do with that.

Yeah, Vinatieri has NOTHING to do with making the kicks that won Brady the championships that cause him to be overrated...

Hahaaahhahaahahahahahahha!!
Vinatieri won those games? In no way shape or form did he have more to do with those wins than a large number of his teammates. The Patriots won those SB's. Brady played a huge role in that. There are multiple kickers who would likely have had the same result as Vinatieri. Kickers make a very high percentage of their kicks. Nobody is as clutch as Brady at his position. Did Vinatieri move the ball down the field to put the Pats in position for the win? No. He did what many others are capable of.

Dam8610
11-01-2006, 10:08 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

He is. Kickers have nothing to do with that.

Yeah, Vinatieri has NOTHING to do with making the kicks that won Brady the championships that cause him to be overrated...

Hahaaahhahaahahahahahahha!!
Vinatieri won those games? In no way shape or form did he have more to do with those wins than a large number of his teammates. The Patriots won those SB's. Brady played a huge role in that. There are multiple kickers who would likely have had the same result as Vinatieri. Kickers make a very high percentage of their kicks. Nobody is as clutch as Brady at his position. Did Vinatieri move the ball down the field to put the Pats in position for the win? No. He did what many others are capable of.

I agree that the Patriots won those games. Most people, however, seem to forget that fact when they rate Tom Brady. They seem to think Brady won those games all by himself. Vinatieri played a bigger role than anyone at the end of 2 of those games, and it was Vinatieri's score that won all 3 of those games for the Patriots. By the way, the original question was:

Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

And I've seen what Vandershank does with a 40+ yard field goal with the game on the line, which is the reason I call him VanderSHANK. Had the Pats had Vandershank, they would have at least had to gone to OT in 2 of those 3 games.

duckseason
11-01-2006, 10:16 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

He is. Kickers have nothing to do with that.

Yeah, Vinatieri has NOTHING to do with making the kicks that won Brady the championships that cause him to be overrated...

Hahaaahhahaahahahahahahha!!
Vinatieri won those games? In no way shape or form did he have more to do with those wins than a large number of his teammates. The Patriots won those SB's. Brady played a huge role in that. There are multiple kickers who would likely have had the same result as Vinatieri. Kickers make a very high percentage of their kicks. Nobody is as clutch as Brady at his position. Did Vinatieri move the ball down the field to put the Pats in position for the win? No. He did what many others are capable of.

I agree that the Patriots won those games. Most people, however, seem to forget that fact when they rate Tom Brady. They seem to think Brady won those games all by himself. Vinatieri played a bigger role than anyone at the end of 2 of those games, and it was Vinatieri's score that won all 3 of those games for the Patriots. By the way, the original question was:

Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

And I've seen what Vandershank does with a 40+ yard field goal with the game on the line, which is the reason I call him VanderSHANK. Had the Pats had Vandershank, they would have at least had to gone to OT in 2 of those 3 games.

I don't really feel like making a huge post right now. I'll just say that it sounds like you're giving Vinatieri far too much credit for those SB wins (as most do), and Brady not nearly enough.
I don't care what the original question was. I was responding to your post. The one where you implied that Tom Brady's greatness is somehow attributable to a kicker. And that without said kicker, he'd be any less of a QB than what he is. Tom Brady is rated properly. Whether you hear people speak of him among the all-time greats, or just mention him as a top 3 QB in the league today. Both are true.

portermvp84
11-02-2006, 09:48 AM
One of the clutch kickers of all time, he's in for sure.

Dam8610
11-02-2006, 10:19 PM
Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

Tom Brady would be rated properly according to his talents and production...

He is. Kickers have nothing to do with that.

Yeah, Vinatieri has NOTHING to do with making the kicks that won Brady the championships that cause him to be overrated...

Hahaaahhahaahahahahahahha!!
Vinatieri won those games? In no way shape or form did he have more to do with those wins than a large number of his teammates. The Patriots won those SB's. Brady played a huge role in that. There are multiple kickers who would likely have had the same result as Vinatieri. Kickers make a very high percentage of their kicks. Nobody is as clutch as Brady at his position. Did Vinatieri move the ball down the field to put the Pats in position for the win? No. He did what many others are capable of.

I agree that the Patriots won those games. Most people, however, seem to forget that fact when they rate Tom Brady. They seem to think Brady won those games all by himself. Vinatieri played a bigger role than anyone at the end of 2 of those games, and it was Vinatieri's score that won all 3 of those games for the Patriots. By the way, the original question was:

Who knows what would've happened had they had Vanderjagt in there... :lol:

And I've seen what Vandershank does with a 40+ yard field goal with the game on the line, which is the reason I call him VanderSHANK. Had the Pats had Vandershank, they would have at least had to gone to OT in 2 of those 3 games.

I don't really feel like making a huge post right now. I'll just say that it sounds like you're giving Vinatieri far too much credit for those SB wins (as most do), and Brady not nearly enough.
I don't care what the original question was. I was responding to your post. The one where you implied that Tom Brady's greatness is somehow attributable to a kicker. And that without said kicker, he'd be any less of a QB than what he is. Tom Brady is rated properly. Whether you hear people speak of him among the all-time greats, or just mention him as a top 3 QB in the league today. Both are true.

Bottom line: Did Brady make the kicks? No. As always, Brady had to rely on the rest of the team to get the job done. Look at what happened to the Patriots in the two years in Brady's tenure as starting QB in New England in which the Patriots didn't have a top 10 scoring defense: 2002 and 2005. They missed the playoffs in 2002, and they made the playoffs in 2005, solely because they played in a HORRIBLE division, and got bounced by the first team with a competent offense they faced. I'm sure their defensive prowess has had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their success though... :roll:

Also, had Brady been dealing with Vandershank kicking FGs for him instead of Vinatieri, the flip of a coin would have decided at least two of the Super Bowls the Patriots won. If you've EVER watched Vandershank kick a 40+ yard FG with the game on the line, you know this to be a fact. So, to say that in no way is Vinatieri is responsible for Tom Brady's current status is pretty ridiculous, considering that had those kicks been missed, those games would have been decided on the flip of a coin. If you honestly feel that anyone would be discussing Brady among the all-time greats had the Patriots not won 3 Super Bowls (a very distinct possibility had they not had Vinatieri), then your standards for "all-time greats" are pretty low, and considering the fact that he's never won without a great defense and a great kicking game that had to wind up bailing him out each and every time, I don't see why he should get so much credit for a team accomplishment, one that he had to rely on his kicker to complete each and every time. So, why should he get so much credit? If he shouldn't, why else would you consider him among the all-time greats?

jsagan77
11-02-2006, 10:27 PM
yes

Staubach12
11-03-2006, 08:11 AM
I definately think he should, and he probably will. All those game winning kicks, without him the Pats don't have 3 SBs.

without terrell davis, the broncos are 0-6 in the super bowl. are you going to support his candidacy as well?

That's less uhh... tangible (i guess that's an ok word) than 3 game winning kicks. Yes TD made some plays in the super bowl, but everyone can make a case for people who made plays in the SB but are not in. What about Michael Irvin? No, I'm not going to complain. It all came to Vinatieri 3 times. 2 times in the actual SB, and once in the AFC championship. The last play. So yes, TD made some plays, but Vinatieri made 3 of the most clutch plays of all time. He's in IMO.

njx9
11-03-2006, 08:48 AM
I definately think he should, and he probably will. All those game winning kicks, without him the Pats don't have 3 SBs.

without terrell davis, the broncos are 0-6 in the super bowl. are you going to support his candidacy as well?

That's less uhh... tangible (i guess that's an ok word) than 3 game winning kicks. Yes TD made some plays in the super bowl, but everyone can make a case for people who made plays in the SB but are not in. What about Michael Irvin? No, I'm not going to complain. It all came to Vinatieri 3 times. 2 times in the actual SB, and once in the AFC championship. The last play. So yes, TD made some plays, but Vinatieri made 3 of the most clutch plays of all time. He's in IMO.

he made some plays?

30 carries 157 yards and 3 touchdowns, after sitting out the second quarter with a migraine? and in a game in which john elway was compeltely ineffective (under 50% completions, 123 yards, 1 interception). i would say that's pretty dang tangible.

Staubach12
11-03-2006, 09:44 AM
I definately think he should, and he probably will. All those game winning kicks, without him the Pats don't have 3 SBs.

without terrell davis, the broncos are 0-6 in the super bowl. are you going to support his candidacy as well?

That's less uhh... tangible (i guess that's an ok word) than 3 game winning kicks. Yes TD made some plays in the super bowl, but everyone can make a case for people who made plays in the SB but are not in. What about Michael Irvin? No, I'm not going to complain. It all came to Vinatieri 3 times. 2 times in the actual SB, and once in the AFC championship. The last play. So yes, TD made some plays, but Vinatieri made 3 of the most clutch plays of all time. He's in IMO.

he made some plays?

30 carries 157 yards and 3 touchdowns, after sitting out the second quarter with a migraine? and in a game in which john elway was compeltely ineffective (under 50% completions, 123 yards, 1 interception). i would say that's pretty dang tangible.

Yeah, he was a stud, but he didn't score the game winning TD on the last play of the game. That's what's getting Vinatieri in the Hall. So it's not a fair comparison.

bigbluedefense
11-03-2006, 09:50 AM
We can't compare kickers to running backs, it has no substance. The HOF recognizes great players at EVERY position, or at least it should. Having that said, kicker is a position in football. And its an important position at that. Ask any fan of a team with a bad kicker. Kickers can be the difference between a good team and a bad team sometimes. Their worth is undervalued.

And Vinatieri has been the most recognized clutch kicker that any of us can recall. If it was easy kicking, every team would have a good kicker. Its time we give the position some credit, kickers are important, and at least some of them should get in the Hall.

njx9
11-03-2006, 10:30 AM
We can't compare kickers to running backs, it has no substance. The HOF recognizes great players at EVERY position, or at least it should. Having that said, kicker is a position in football. And its an important position at that. Ask any fan of a team with a bad kicker. Kickers can be the difference between a good team and a bad team sometimes. Their worth is undervalued.

And Vinatieri has been the most recognized clutch kicker that any of us can recall. If it was easy kicking, every team would have a good kicker. Its time we give the position some credit, kickers are important, and at least some of them should get in the Hall.

some of them should, but i still think <10 plays is a pretty lame excuse to put someone in the hall. and i'm nto comparing the players, just the lame argument used to get one in the hall while the other is typically excluded. like i said, if the guy had been a great kicker over his career? great. but he's only been "great" for the last few years. like i said earlier, it wasn't all that long ago that he hit 70% of his kicks. that's terrible for the first kicker to get into the hall of fame. i just don't buy for one second that you can put someone in the hall on the strength of a few plays and ESPECIALLY when that player would be the first at his position. he's not the greatest kicker of all time, and i find it absolutely funny that people on this board believe he is.

bigbluedefense
11-03-2006, 10:40 AM
We can't compare kickers to running backs, it has no substance. The HOF recognizes great players at EVERY position, or at least it should. Having that said, kicker is a position in football. And its an important position at that. Ask any fan of a team with a bad kicker. Kickers can be the difference between a good team and a bad team sometimes. Their worth is undervalued.

And Vinatieri has been the most recognized clutch kicker that any of us can recall. If it was easy kicking, every team would have a good kicker. Its time we give the position some credit, kickers are important, and at least some of them should get in the Hall.

some of them should, but i still think <10 plays is a pretty lame excuse to put someone in the hall. and i'm nto comparing the players, just the lame argument used to get one in the hall while the other is typically excluded. like i said, if the guy had been a great kicker over his career? great. but he's only been "great" for the last few years. like i said earlier, it wasn't all that long ago that he hit 70% of his kicks. that's terrible for the first kicker to get into the hall of fame. i just don't buy for one second that you can put someone in the hall on the strength of a few plays and ESPECIALLY when that player would be the first at his position. he's not the greatest kicker of all time, and i find it absolutely funny that people on this board believe he is.

My thing with kickers is that its more important to hit the clutch kick not the % kick. If that were the case, Vanderjagt is the best kicker ever, because he is the most "accurate". But put him in a big moment, and Vanderjagt literally misses it every time. So how do we rate this? Its a difficult answer with no right or wrong, but for me personally, its all about the clutch kick. I want a kicker who I know can get me the kick when I need it the most. And while Vinatieri might not be the best overall kicker ever, I don't think there ever was a more clutch kicker than him.

Put Morten in first. Then Vinatieri. That would be fair. But I think his impact on the game's history is too large for him to be ignored. Joe Namath made it based on a prediction moreso than actual play. Namath's body of work over an entire career was not HOF worthy, but he got in because of his impact on the history of the game.

njx9
11-03-2006, 11:18 AM
We can't compare kickers to running backs, it has no substance. The HOF recognizes great players at EVERY position, or at least it should. Having that said, kicker is a position in football. And its an important position at that. Ask any fan of a team with a bad kicker. Kickers can be the difference between a good team and a bad team sometimes. Their worth is undervalued.

And Vinatieri has been the most recognized clutch kicker that any of us can recall. If it was easy kicking, every team would have a good kicker. Its time we give the position some credit, kickers are important, and at least some of them should get in the Hall.

some of them should, but i still think <10 plays is a pretty lame excuse to put someone in the hall. and i'm nto comparing the players, just the lame argument used to get one in the hall while the other is typically excluded. like i said, if the guy had been a great kicker over his career? great. but he's only been "great" for the last few years. like i said earlier, it wasn't all that long ago that he hit 70% of his kicks. that's terrible for the first kicker to get into the hall of fame. i just don't buy for one second that you can put someone in the hall on the strength of a few plays and ESPECIALLY when that player would be the first at his position. he's not the greatest kicker of all time, and i find it absolutely funny that people on this board believe he is.

My thing with kickers is that its more important to hit the clutch kick not the % kick. If that were the case, Vanderjagt is the best kicker ever, because he is the most "accurate". But put him in a big moment, and Vanderjagt literally misses it every time. So how do we rate this? Its a difficult answer with no right or wrong, but for me personally, its all about the clutch kick. I want a kicker who I know can get me the kick when I need it the most. And while Vinatieri might not be the best overall kicker ever, I don't think there ever was a more clutch kicker than him.

Put Morten in first. Then Vinatieri. That would be fair. But I think his impact on the game's history is too large for him to be ignored. Joe Namath made it based on a prediction moreso than actual play. Namath's body of work over an entire career was not HOF worthy, but he got in because of his impact on the history of the game.

I could go with something more along those lines... i just cannot justify him as the greatest kicker ever. but don't think i disagree with you, it's absolutely about more than simple numbers with a kicker in some ways. but again, I would absolutely put a guy like Morten Anderson who WAS clearly the best kicker in the league for several years (again, we'd need scorchin or someone to verify that he wasn't the vanderjagt of the early '80s) in first. But i wouldn't mind seeing Vinatieri get in on the third ballot or so and after another kicker.

eacantdraft
11-03-2006, 12:08 PM
I definately think he should, and he probably will. All those game winning kicks, without him the Pats don't have 3 SBs.

without terrell davis, the broncos are 0-6 in the super bowl. are you going to support his candidacy as well?

Denver would have won the Super Bowl against Atlanta if John Elway's grandmother lined up at RB. No way would that dysfunctional team (Atlanta) win. And Terrell Davis was a non factor in the Super Bowl against Atlanta.

Adam Venetari will need to play a much longer career if he makes it to the Hall of Fame. Morten Andersen and Gary Anderson are worthy as well.

Jay
11-05-2006, 08:38 AM
i don't buy that a guy who hasn't, historically, been a very good regular season kicker should get in just because of a couple of playoff appearances. unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that Terrell Davis should get in for the same reason.

1. He set the Patriots all time scoring record. Obviously, that's not someone who "hasn't historically been a very good regular season kicker." Granted, the Patriots haven't had this long list of storied offensive players in their history, but Gino Cappaletti was a good one and he was the previous holder. You don't just do something like that

2. He has 1209 career points, putting him just a good season outside of the top 20, and he's done it in 10 years, this being his 11th.

3. "A couple playoff appearances" ????? He has only won the Super Bowl on one of his kicks THREE times. I may be mistaken, but he's the only player to ever do it once. Not only that, but the snow game against Oakland, MANY regular season games (including last week)

4 (and most important). He's only 33. By kicker's standards, he's still got another 10 years of productivity.

Morten Anderson has averaged 100.08 points per year (2402/24) over his career. Adam Vinitieri has averaged 109.91 (1209/11) (and that's counting this year, which isn't over, for both). How about them apples?

So in conclusion:

Huge kicks in games that count > longevity.

P-L
11-05-2006, 10:48 AM
I hope the same people who feel Vinatieri shouldn't get in, also feel that Jan Stenerud doesn't belong in the HOF. Stenerud converted only 66% of his field goals and choked on multiple occasions. He even missed a kick that would've put his team in the Super Bowl, but they ended up losing. Also, Morten Anderson, who some said was the best kicker ever, has a lower career percentage than Vinatieri does.

duckseason
11-05-2006, 10:58 AM
I don't really feel like making a huge post right now. I'll just say that it sounds like you're giving Vinatieri far too much credit for those SB wins (as most do), and Brady not nearly enough.
I don't care what the original question was. I was responding to your post. The one where you implied that Tom Brady's greatness is somehow attributable to a kicker. And that without said kicker, he'd be any less of a QB than what he is. Tom Brady is rated properly. Whether you hear people speak of him among the all-time greats, or just mention him as a top 3 QB in the league today. Both are true.

Bottom line: Did Brady make the kicks? No. As always, Brady had to rely on the rest of the team to get the job done. Look at what happened to the Patriots in the two years in Brady's tenure as starting QB in New England in which the Patriots didn't have a top 10 scoring defense: 2002 and 2005. They missed the playoffs in 2002, and they made the playoffs in 2005, solely because they played in a HORRIBLE division, and got bounced by the first team with a competent offense they faced. I'm sure their defensive prowess has had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their success though... :roll:

Also, had Brady been dealing with Vandershank kicking FGs for him instead of Vinatieri, the flip of a coin would have decided at least two of the Super Bowls the Patriots won. If you've EVER watched Vandershank kick a 40+ yard FG with the game on the line, you know this to be a fact. So, to say that in no way is Vinatieri is responsible for Tom Brady's current status is pretty ridiculous, considering that had those kicks been missed, those games would have been decided on the flip of a coin. If you honestly feel that anyone would be discussing Brady among the all-time greats had the Patriots not won 3 Super Bowls (a very distinct possibility had they not had Vinatieri), then your standards for "all-time greats" are pretty low, and considering the fact that he's never won without a great defense and a great kicking game that had to wind up bailing him out each and every time, I don't see why he should get so much credit for a team accomplishment, one that he had to rely on his kicker to complete each and every time. So, why should he get so much credit? If he shouldn't, why else would you consider him among the all-time greats?

Then why would we consider Montana among the greats as well? ALL Super Bowl winning QB's had a great supporting cast. You don't win a Super Bowl unless you're a great team. Those Patriot squads were no more talented than previous winners.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to such a nescient post. I guess I'm just bored. This really doesn't even deserve a reply, but I feel the need to set the record straight. Look, I'm not trying to minimize what Vinatieri has accomplished in his career. He deserves the acclaim he receives. He is a hero to many, and it is a great story.

But let's make it clear. HE HAD NO MORE TO DO WITH WINNING THOSE SUPER BOWLS THAN ANY OTHER PATRIOT WHO PLAYED IN THOSE GAMES. He played his role like everybody else. He did his job. Just like everybody else on that team. His was just a bit less strenuous.

To say that Brady would not be who he is today without Vinatieri is a ridiculous statement. You could flip that around, and it would hold much more water. Where was Vinatieri in Super Bowl XXXI? You know, the one where the QB (and the rest of the offense) put him in position for the win? Oh wait, that never happened because the QB (Bledsoe) threw 4 interceptions in that game, and Vinatieri never even got a chance to attempt a FG.

The defense deserves most of the credit for the victory over the Rams. We all know that. Vinatieri had a heck of a game as well, and a young Brady played much better than anybody could have expected of him. It wouldn't have taken much for them to lose that game. One screw up by anybody on the team, and it could have been different. Fact is, Vinatieri kicked the game winner, but the Patriots won the game. Vinatieri's stat line: 2-2 FG's (37) (48 ) Brady's 16-27 145 1TD 0INT

Now let's move on to the interesting part. Super Bowl XXXVIII (Panthers). Another great game. Vinatieri won that one too, right? All by himself. Let's just cut straight to the facts. Vinatieri missed a 31 yard FG, and had another blocked from 38. Brady posted a meager 32-48 for 354 yds 3TD's and 1INT. Ask yourself, would Vinatieri's hall of fame cementing kick have ever occured if he hadn't played so poorly earlier in the game? Imagine the feeling of the Patriot offense after they had worked their asses off to drive down to the 14 yard line for a chip shot FG, only to watch Vinatieri misfire. Who deserves most of the credit for their win? The guys that busted their asses to move the ball up and down the field, or the specialist who nearly nullified all that hard work? He is supposed to make 41 yard field goals. Just like Brady is expected to complete 10 yard passes.

Fact is, most kickers would probably have outperformed Vinatieri in that game. He was 1-3 from 31, 38, and 41. He deserves all the credit in the world for making that 41 yarder, but by no means did that kick win the game. The 2 pt conversion on the previous score was just as important, and the 4 TD's were as well. As were the key misses. He was actually one of the worst players on the field that day. He performed at a sub-standard level, but was the guy in the spotlight at the big moment. Good for him. I'm truly happy that he gained success from all that. He worked hard, and deserves it. However, he does not deserve to be given ANY credit for what Tom Brady has accomplished in his career.

Statlines for XXXIX (Eagles)- Vinatieri- 1-1 (22) Brady- 23-33 236 2TD's 0 INT's
Pretty obvious who played a bigger part in that one as well. Don't forget that without Brady and the offense, Vinatieri would never get a chance to even attempt a FG. They don't need him to score TD's.

Wake up. Stop acting like such a gobemouche. Get off that "I love Manning, so I'm jealous of Brady's 6-1 record against him" crap. Brady is one of the greatest to ever play the game. I never wanted to admit that, but it's true. Vinatieri is an above average kicker, who was placed in the brightest spotlight in the world a few times, and took advantage of the situation. Just like most kickers would likely have done. But he did it, so he deserves credit. Just keep it in perspective.

Jay
11-05-2006, 11:07 AM
Hahaha I am so glad I missed what that Colts yahoo had to say. What a crock of ****. Reputation ='s gone, but that wasn't saying much...

jmanz
11-05-2006, 07:08 PM
The guy is as clutch as kickers come, get him in there.

k2isasoldier
11-08-2006, 02:29 AM
AV is a scum bag he doesnt deserve it

DChess
11-08-2006, 02:29 AM
AV is a scum bag he doesnt deserve it

u took the words out fo my mouth