12-15-2020, 03:24 AM
In the past ~30 hours I have seen many posts on this board, other boards, and in news articles which assert: "Vikings would have defeated Tampa if Dan Bailey hadn't screwed up". We lost by 12 and Bailey failed on kicks which could have totaled 10. I know people are already typing furiously to tell me how Tampa would not have kicked the first half FG if they hadn't taken over so close (because you are certain they wouldn't have run it back at least as far against our ace coverage units?) or the momentum or team morale would have been different (because guessing the enthusiasm of Vikings teams is such an exact science?) Time of possession, yardage...football isn't about either of those, it is about points, and even if Bailey was perfect, looks like a 26-24 loss by my math.
I'm not here to defend Bailey really. Keep him, replace him...I don't personally believe there is anyone on this staff able to either help him fix his issues or able to identify and manage another kicker, so they may as well wait. But there is another angle to many of these rants, which is basically: "Poor Mike Zimmer would have a better record and probably a couple championships if not for bad kicking."
Seriously? First, kickers are unpredictable (if not nuts). What coach pins his career and his team's fate on kicking? Do you think maybe Zimmer should know that, because maybe he got a pretty strong lesson in that around January 2016?? So if he is counting on kicking to win games, he is either stupid, or has a team that can barely compete and has to take that risk. So he's not coaching a team that can compete for a championship.
Besides: Field Goals are CONSOLATION PRIZES. Hey Zimmer, the point of football is to get ALL THE WAY to the end zone - sorry if that means building an offense that can consistently drive 50, 60, 70 yards and punch it in. I guess it would be nicer just take a punt somewhere like your own 35, get a couple first downs and get to the opponents 40 and get 3 points. Should we call the 40 yard line the "Nice Try Zone" and make 3 points automatic?
My hunch is that Spielman and Zimmer are secretly happy to have the kicker kerfuffle, because they can cut Bailey and fire Malouf and say, "We were just a kicker away from the playoffs!" It will be another excuse to present to the Wilfs.
I'm not here to defend Bailey really. Keep him, replace him...I don't personally believe there is anyone on this staff able to either help him fix his issues or able to identify and manage another kicker, so they may as well wait. But there is another angle to many of these rants, which is basically: "Poor Mike Zimmer would have a better record and probably a couple championships if not for bad kicking."
Seriously? First, kickers are unpredictable (if not nuts). What coach pins his career and his team's fate on kicking? Do you think maybe Zimmer should know that, because maybe he got a pretty strong lesson in that around January 2016?? So if he is counting on kicking to win games, he is either stupid, or has a team that can barely compete and has to take that risk. So he's not coaching a team that can compete for a championship.
Besides: Field Goals are CONSOLATION PRIZES. Hey Zimmer, the point of football is to get ALL THE WAY to the end zone - sorry if that means building an offense that can consistently drive 50, 60, 70 yards and punch it in. I guess it would be nicer just take a punt somewhere like your own 35, get a couple first downs and get to the opponents 40 and get 3 points. Should we call the 40 yard line the "Nice Try Zone" and make 3 points automatic?
My hunch is that Spielman and Zimmer are secretly happy to have the kicker kerfuffle, because they can cut Bailey and fire Malouf and say, "We were just a kicker away from the playoffs!" It will be another excuse to present to the Wilfs.
