They've Come Undun! Volume 2 [Archive] - Sports Central Message Boards

View Full Version : They've Come Undun! Volume 2

Anthony

10-31-2006, 04:18 AM

On one particular week four years ago, several different NFL coaches "came undun" all at once (the unusual spelling is a tribute to The Guess Who's 1969 single of that title and spelling).

Well the same thing seems to have happened again in Week 8: Three head coaches celebrated the 77th anniversary of the legendary Wall Street crash with "crashes" of their own, and a fourth should at least be mentioned here as well.

The offenders, in order of the gravity of their unraveling:

1. Gary Kubiak, Houston Texans: Kubiak utterly destroyed David Carr's confidence by benching him and inserting no-talent Sage Rosenfels in Houston's 28-22 loss at Tennessee which dumped the Texans into the familiar surroundings of the AFC South cellar.

2. Brad Childress, Minnesota Vikings: Childress couldn't resist the temptation to bench Brad Johnson in favor of Brooks Bollinger, like Rosenfels a proven NFL flop, in the fourth quarter of Minnesota's 31-7 Monday night loss to New England.

In both cases, middle-aged men (Kubiak is 45, Childress 50) showed all the patience and maturity of a 2-year-old, with no hope of accomplishing anything positive.

3. Andy Reid, Philadelphia Eagles: Reid took a foolish risk by bringing back wide receiver Donte' Stallworth, dinky hamstring and all, on a day where his downfield speed promised to be a total non-issue, with gale-force winds rendering the deep passing game non-functional (although Reid probably got away with it since it does not appear as if Stallworth re-aggravated the hamstring in the game against Jacksonville). Also worth noting is the 5-yard penalty the Eagles incurred in the second quarter - for having twelve men in the huddle! (Was Reid intentionally cheating, or can't he count to 12?).

And while the following does not involve a blunder per se, it should be included here anyway:

4. Lovie Smith, Chicago Bears: Smith obviously isn't a believer in the concept of "killer instinct" with his lay-and-pray offense in the second half of Chicago's 41-10 rout of the 49ers in which Chicago led 41-0 at halftime. After sputtering when last seen (two Monday nights prior in Arizona), the Bears offense should have used the second half to send a message; had Mike Martz, for example, been the Bears' head coach, they probably would have won 80-0 and stamped themselves as the odds-on favorite to win Super Bowl XLI. And don't hand me this business about risking injury: When you play scared - as Chicago did on offense in the second half - that's when you do get players injured.

Guess this is the way the Fates amuse themselves.

catman

10-31-2006, 10:41 AM

In Childress' defense, why risk a QB in a blowout?
Also, Smith had made his point. Why run the score up?

#99

10-31-2006, 01:53 PM

Agreed with Catman on both counts. Childress obviously realizes that it's not worth leaving his starting QB out there in a game that is well out of reach and, my god, when you're up 41-0 at halftime I'm pretty sure that your message has already been sent. Even if the Bears did run up the score to 80, people could just point out that it was against the 49ers, the team that has surrendered the most points in the league. How hollow a message would that be? Of those you listed, Anthony, I'd say only Kubiak is the true offender.

Reading your assessment of Andy Reid sounds more like a personal vendetta than anything. Rather than questioning his use of Stallworth and one (just one) 12-men-on-the-field penalty, why not assail him for the Eagles three-game losing streak? But even then, that isn't completely fair. Obviously, he started Stallworth in a desperate attempt to break the losing skid. It didn't work, but at least he's actively addressing the situation, rather than coming "undun."

doublee

10-31-2006, 06:43 PM

I gotta agree with my feline friend here. The game was already out of reach for the Vikes when he pulled Johnson for Bollinger and it is not as though Johnson was lighting it up out there.

#99 you are probably right in the assessment on Reid. Anthony has been carrying a grudge agains the guy ever since he sent T. O. packing. I don't see how you bag on him for playing Stallworth. If he feels good enough to play then play him, besides it is not as if he re-injured himself during the game. At least I don't see him on any of the postgame injury reports. The main reason the deep passing game was ineffective had more to do with Jacksonville playing good defense as much as the wind. There were numerous times in that game where McNabb dropped back and had great protection but nobody came open. If you want to blame Reid for anything this past week blame him for not having the offense ready to play ball that was about as flat as anyone can play.

The whole post seems to be a bit nit-picky if you ask me.

Marc

10-31-2006, 08:47 PM

Might as well include Packers coach Mike McCarthy in the list, as he called one of the most bone-headed plays I've seen. The Packers were driving, but came up a yard short for the first down. Instead of going for it, he decided to fake a field goal by having the kicker roll the right and apparently run for it. There were no receivers, so either it was a miscommunication or bone-headed call. Other than that, McCarthy has been really good, though.

Tarkus

10-31-2006, 11:13 PM

Anthony, you're just too much...:P

So you think leaving in your 38 year old starter in a 31-7 Pat beatdown for the 4th quarter after he's been sacked 4 times & with absolutely no hope of winning was the right way to go, eh?

& you think that the Bear killer instinct with a 41-0 lead is non-existent,eh?

& Andy Reid fields Stallworth who doesn't re-injure himself & that was stupid, eh?

It's obvious that you didn't miss your calling in the NFL...

boston_aloha

11-01-2006, 12:07 AM

4. Lovie Smith, Chicago Bears: Smith obviously isn't a believer in the concept of "killer instinct" with his lay-and-pray offense in the second half of Chicago's 41-10 rout of the 49ers in which Chicago led 41-0 at halftime. After sputtering when last seen (two Monday nights prior in Arizona), the Bears offense should have used the second half to send a message; had Mike Martz, for example, been the Bears' head coach, they probably would have won 80-0 and stamped themselves as the odds-on favorite to win Super Bowl XLI. And don't hand me this business about risking injury: When you play scared - as Chicago did on offense in the second half - that's when you do get players injured.
This is BS... 41-0 at HALFTIME is not a statement??? Are you kidding me?
You talk about Mike Martz - last time I check, he lost his job. And as far as injuries go - lets say for example Rex Grossman breaks and ankle (again!!) in the 4th quarter when they are up 80-0... Lovie Smith looks likes the dumbest coach in NFL history - then , and only then could he make your list of so-called "un-do-ers"

Anthony

11-01-2006, 12:17 AM

At least no one seems to be slamming me for criticizing Kubiak.

And if the Vikings were so worried about their 38-year-old quarterback, why didn't they make a serious move to upgrade the position after trading Culpepper? (Brooks Bollinger and Mike McMahon do not qualify as serious moves). And why not just leave Brad Johnson in the game to hand the ball off - wouldn't that have been better? (And how come Childress didn't bench his cornerbacks for the swell job they did on New England's receivers?).

Now, Fat Boy: Does the name Bert Jones mean anything to him? Ted Marchibroda wrecked Jones' career back in 1978 by repeatedly bringing him back prematurely from an injury (in this case, a separated shoulder). And if Stallworth reinjures the hamstring, their season is over (it probably is anyway) - and don't even get me started about Jim "Bend-But-Don't-Break" Johnson's front seven, who earned the nickname "The Little Engines That Can't" on Sunday (remember that I saw the game, and I can't believe how much of a finesse team - on both sides of the ball - the Eagles have become. What must Buddy Ryan have been thinking if he was watching?).

So far as the Bears go, I wasn't advocating that they stop the clock to score another touchdown with a 70-point lead and 30 seconds left or anything like that - but if they had put up 60 or 70 they could have disspelled the lingering doubts that many people still have about their offense (if it was the Colts who had been up 41-0 at halftime it would have been an entirely different story). And we have become way too oversensitive about rubbing it in, etc.; the late Morton Downey Jr. used a certain term to denote people who display this tendency - he called them "pablum pukers" (and how come they don't seem to worry about this anywhere near as much in college football - can't a college quarterback break his leg just as easily as one in the NFL?). But I'm sure Oprah Winfrey was extremely impressed with Lovie Smith's second-half play selection.

Besides, were it not for the appalling lack of a legitimate playoff system, college football would be better than the NFL - all this "parity" stuff is humbug! I loved it growing up, picking up the newspaper, and routinely seeing 24-point favorites in NFL games. If you really think about it, it is just plain old greed that drives this movement for so-called "competitive balance" (did any NFL team go broke in the 1960s or '70s?). Who wants to be forced to call mediocre teams (like this year's St. Louis Cardinals in baseball) "World Champions"? (Since we don't want to hurt the losers' "feelings," the solution is to dumb down everything - from sports to college entrance exams). Bring back dynasties - didn't the "Damn Yankees" help get us through the Depression and World War II - and might we now be in the need for something similar to help us get through whatever the neoconartists end up dragging us into?

Tarkus

11-01-2006, 03:03 AM

And if the Vikings were so worried about their 38-year-old quarterback, why didn't they make a serious move to upgrade the position after trading Culpepper? (Brooks Bollinger and Mike McMahon do not qualify as serious moves). And why not just leave Brad Johnson in the game to hand the ball off - wouldn't that have been better? (And how come Childress didn't bench his cornerbacks for the swell job they did on New England's receivers?).

You have an interesting way of expanding & getting off topic, Anthony...

This isn't about what they didn't do before the season but what they have right now & how leaving him in after a good deal of punishment was just foolish. Nothing more...

No need to bring up anything else when the point is about a game decision. Childress was right...it's that simple.

Now, Fat Boy: Does the name Bert Jones mean anything to him? Ted Marchibroda wrecked Jones' career back in 1978 by repeatedly bringing him back prematurely from an injury (in this case, a separated shoulder). And if Stallworth reinjures the hamstring, their season is over (it probably is anyway) - and don't even get me started about Jim "Bend-But-Don't-Break" Johnson's front seven, who earned the nickname "The Little Engines That Can't" on Sunday (remember that I saw the game, and I can't believe how much of a finesse team - on both sides of the ball - the Eagles have become. What must Buddy Ryan have been thinking if he was watching?).

"What if" doesn't mean anything here. Stallworth didn't so arguing "what if" has no meaning or bearing. Just let it go...

So far as the Bears go, I wasn't advocating that they stop the clock to score another touchdown with a 70-point lead and 30 seconds left or anything like that - but if they had put up 60 or 70 they could have disspelled the lingering doubts that many people still have about their offense (if it was the Colts who had been up 41-0 at halftime it would have been an entirely different story). And we have become way too oversensitive about rubbing it in, etc.; the late Morton Downey Jr. used a certain term to denote people who display this tendency - he called them "pablum pukers" (and how come they don't seem to worry about this anywhere near as much in college football - can't a college quarterback break his leg just as easily as one in the NFL?). But I'm sure Oprah Winfrey was extremely impressed with Lovie Smith's second-half play selection.

Lingering doubts? Maybe by the people who haven't been watching but not many else. They're leading the league in points but football fans know how running up scores on lesser opponents have a way of inflating the reality. The game was essentially over after the 1st quarter & the funural services completed by halftime. Dancing on the grave in the 2nd half served no purpose.

The Bears can score, without a doubt. As a matter of fact, against much better D's than the 49ers. So to continue trying to score would have proved nothing. Besides that, San Fran had made adjustments at halftime & the only way to continue in that foolish quest would have been to give more film on more plays that they could have used to counter those adjustments. That's called bad football.

& using Morton Downey Jr. isn't goin' to make people sit up & take notice...:P

Besides, were it not for the appalling lack of a legitimate playoff system, college football would be better than the NFL - all this "parity" stuff is humbug! I loved it growing up, picking up the newspaper, and routinely seeing 24-point favorites in NFL games. If you really think about it, it is just plain old greed that drives this movement for so-called "competitive balance" (did any NFL team go broke in the 1960s or '70s?). Who wants to be forced to call mediocre teams (like this year's St. Louis Cardinals in baseball) "World Champions"? (Since we don't want to hurt the losers' "feelings," the solution is to dumb down everything - from sports to college entrance exams). Bring back dynasties - didn't the "Damn Yankees" help get us through the Depression and World War II - and might we now be in the need for something similar to help us get through whatever the neoconartists end up dragging us into?

Aaaaannnndddd we're off.....to another topic. :lol:

This thread was supposed to be about "undun", not 'redo'. I'm out of here before I hear how this links to politics, terrorists, 3rd world countries....& T.O., of course. ;)

Anthony

11-01-2006, 04:38 AM

You have an interesting way of expanding & getting off topic, Anthony...

This isn't about what they didn't do before the season but what they have right now & how leaving him in after a good deal of punishment was just foolish. Nothing more...

No need to bring up anything else when the point is about a game decision. Childress was right...it's that simple.

How much "punishment" would he have taken by simply handing the ball off?

"What if" doesn't mean anything here. Stallworth didn't so arguing "what if" has no meaning or bearing. Just let it go...

I get it: By your line of reasoning, if someone shoots a gun at somebody else but misses, we shouldn't even criticize him, much less punish him.

Lingering doubts? Maybe by the people who haven't been watching but not many else. They're leading the league in points but football fans know how running up scores on lesser opponents have a way of inflating the reality. The game was essentially over after the 1st quarter & the funural services completed by halftime. Dancing on the grave in the 2nd half served no purpose.

The Bears can score, without a doubt. As a matter of fact, against much better D's than the 49ers. So to continue trying to score would have proved nothing. Besides that, San Fran had made adjustments at halftime & the only way to continue in that foolish quest would have been to give more film on more plays that they could have used to counter those adjustments. That's called bad football.

Guess you forgot about the 1999 Rams. The year before that they were 4-12; then they went out there at the start of the 1999 season and blew everyone away right from the get-go. They built up their confidence by doing so, and ended up winning a Super Bowl championship by literally scaring the rest of the league to death.

Aaaaannnndddd we're off.....to another topic. :lol:

This thread was supposed to be about "undun", not 'redo'. I'm out of here before I hear how this links to politics, terrorists, 3rd world countries....& T.O., of course. ;)

But it is relevant: In 1940, did anyone whine and moan when the Bears beat the Redskins 73-0 in the NFL championship game?

Of course in those days, "mug" was a noun denoting something you drank coffee out of, instead of a verb denoting something that might happen to you if you walked down the "wrong" street at the "wrong" hour of night - and "crack" was something on the Liberty Bell, not something people smoked.

Isn't it a grand world we live in: Everybody claims to care about other people's "feelings," yet we're more narcissistic, self-centered, and violent than ever.

And besides, I just threw Lovie Smith in there as an addendum; I'm not putting him in the same class as what Kubiak, Childress and Reid did - but his actions did point up a lot that has been wrong with this society for decades (don't leave a kid back in school because it would hurt the kid's "self-esteem," so send kids who can't even read and write into the workforce that way, for example).

boston_aloha

11-01-2006, 04:39 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol:
^ that was pretty funny Tark...

Anthony

11-01-2006, 08:08 AM

OK - Lovie Smith really didn't belong in this discussion.

But the other three - and particularly the first two - did: They "came undone" in the sense that they let their emotions get the best of them, and did something rash and inappropriate; in Andy Reid's case, he couldn't resist the temptation to bring a key player back before he was physically ready, and needlessly jeopardized whatever chances his team has of salvaging anything significant out of this season - so he also demonstrated poor judgment and impulsive recklessness, albeit to less of a degree than Kubiak or Childress.

Gary Kubiak was clearly the worst offender - his move was spiteful, immature, and completely counterproductive.

#99

11-01-2006, 01:12 PM

KevinBeane

11-01-2006, 01:18 PM

At least no one seems to be slamming me for criticizing Kubiak.

So far as the Bears go, I wasn't advocating that they stop the clock to score another touchdown with a 70-point lead and 30 seconds left or anything like that - but if they had put up 60 or 70 they could have disspelled the lingering doubts that many people still have about their offense (if it was the Colts who had been up 41-0 at halftime it would have been an entirely different story). And we have become way too oversensitive about rubbing it in, etc.; the late Morton Downey Jr. used a certain term to denote people who display this tendency - he called them "pablum pukers"

Ahh, Morton Downey Jr. That takes me back. Actually, he was kind of similar to Anthony in that he seemed to be quite convervative on some issues and quite liberal on others.

Anyway, back on-topic...so you're saying we SHOULDN'T care about whether or not it's poor sportsmanship to run up the score...but we SHOULD care about "impressions" and "convincing" people that the Bears have a good offense...specifically, the people who are NOT swayed by a 41-0 halftime score but WOULD be by a 65-0 final score. Who are these people? I think they're kinda crazy.

(and how come they don't seem to worry about this anywhere near as much in college football - can't a college quarterback break his leg just as easily as one in the NFL?).

What? If you're talking about subsitutions, I assure you that most programs put in the reserves if they are comfortably ahead even faster than they do in the NFL. If you are talking about running up the score, there's less parity in College Football and sometimes a team can scarcely avoid scoring big numbers if the losing team is so overmatched they can't stop their reserves running the same play up the middle every time.

Of course in those days, "mug" was a noun denoting something you drank coffee out of, instead of a verb denoting something that might happen to you if you walked down the "wrong" street at the "wrong" hour of night - and "crack" was something on the Liberty Bell, not something people smoked.

And I wore an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.

LA sports

11-01-2006, 03:06 PM

As usual Anthony is way off on almost everything, and when called on it he changes the subject or goes off on something that does not answer peoples questions.

Hmmm... Anthony should run for office.:lol:

boston_aloha

11-01-2006, 04:49 PM

And I wore an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.
That is by far the best quote on these boards I've seen in a long time! :lol:
After the 1940's comment I was gonna come up with something like "ah, that ain't been since ott six"

Tarkus

11-01-2006, 10:25 PM

How much "punishment" would he have taken by simply handing the ball off?

The way the Vikes were playing, probably a bit more. Besides, a perfect time to let your backup get some reps, no matter how useless you think he might be...

I get it: By your line of reasoning, if someone shoots a gun at somebody else but misses, we shouldn't even criticize him, much less punish him.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So now it's OK to equate an NFL head coach making a player decision based, I'm sure, on the trainer's advice, the player's assessment of how he feels, & the HC's need for that player in that particular game to someone shooting at someone else....:rolleyes:

Not one of your better attempts, Anthony...

I would have expected that person shooting the gun to be a terrorist Democrat firing a gun bought at a clandestine meeting with members of a previous US White House Staff & who had just took a potshot at a Republican who happened to be a McNabb fan wearing a I Hate T.O. t-shirt...:P

Guess you forgot about the 1999 Rams. The year before that they were 4-12; then they went out there at the start of the 1999 season and blew everyone away right from the get-go. They built up their confidence by doing so, and ended up winning a Super Bowl championship by literally scaring the rest of the league to death.

Uuuhhh, no I haven't but don't tell me you can throw in the Bears offense in with that Ram offense. :eek: If the Bears do anything this year, it'll be from their play cuz they're not gonna scare anyone into submission...

But it is relevant: In 1940, did anyone whine and moan when the Bears beat the Redskins 73-0 in the NFL championship game?

Of course in those days, "mug" was a noun denoting something you drank coffee out of, instead of a verb denoting something that might happen to you if you walked down the "wrong" street at the "wrong" hour of night - and "crack" was something on the Liberty Bell, not something people smoked.

Isn't it a grand world we live in: Everybody claims to care about other people's "feelings," yet we're more narcissistic, self-centered, and violent than ever.

Uuuhhh, I have a Doctor's note excusing me from answering that one...;)

And besides, I just threw Lovie Smith in there as an addendum; I'm not putting him in the same class as what Kubiak, Childress and Reid did

:confused: But you already did?

- but his actions did point up a lot that has been wrong with this society for decades (don't leave a kid back in school because it would hurt the kid's "self-esteem," so send kids who can't even read and write into the workforce that way, for example).

I just hope you have the driest sense of humor I've ever encountered cuz that made absolutely no sense....

Anthony

11-02-2006, 05:05 AM

In honor of the party that will probably take back control of Congress next week, I think I'll cut and run from this thread.