Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Adam Vinatieri a HOFer?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by bigbluedefense
      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.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by njx9
        Originally posted by bigbluedefense
        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.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by bigbluedefense
          Originally posted by njx9
          Originally posted by bigbluedefense
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by njx9
            Originally posted by draftguru151
            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.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by njx9
              Originally posted by bigbluedefense
              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.

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Dam8610
                  Originally posted by duckseason
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The guy is as clutch as kickers come, get him in there.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        AV is a scum bag he doesnt deserve it

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by k2isasoldier
                          AV is a scum bag he doesnt deserve it
                          u took the words out fo my mouth

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X

                          Debug Information